## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 1675 L ARRY D. S TO RIE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. R ANDY ’ S A U T O S ALES, LLC ,

D efend a nt/Third -P a rty P la intif f/A pp ellee,

v. S T . P AUL M ERC URY I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y, Third -P a rty D efend a nt/A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:07- cv-22-WTL-D ML

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 17, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. C UDAH Y, C ircu it Judge. In 2004, Larr y D. S tor i e bo ught a tr u c k t h at h ad be en in vo lve d in a fat al a c c id en t t h e p re vi-2 N o. 09

- 1675

o us y ea r . Cl ai m i ngtha t h e had b ee n mi sl ed ab o utthe tr uck’ s hi sto ry, he bro ught sui t aga i nst a num ber o f com panie s tha t had o w ned the t ruck between the ti m e o f the a cci dent and hi s purchas e o fi t. Th e p re sent case c o nc e r ns S t o r i e ’ s l a ws ui tag a i ns tRa nd y ’ s Aut o S a l e s , LL C. H e alleg es that Rand y’ s f ai l ed to applyf ora sal vage ti tl e, as i t was r equi re d to do u n d erInd i ana l aw . The di str i ct cour t g ra n te d s um m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofRandy’s , fi nd ing tha t I nd

. Cod e § 9-22-3- 11(e) does not req uire an entity th at acq ui r e d a w recked veh icl e to ap p ly for a sal vage ti tl e when i t no l onge r own s the v eh icl e upon the r ecei pt ofthe certific ate o fti tl e. Because thi s ca se turns on the i nter preta ti on o fan am b iguous sta te sta tute, w e ce rt i fy the ca se to the S up re m e Cour t o fInd i ana.

I . B AC KGR OUND On N ove m ber17, 2003 , the dri vero fa W est er n St artr uck was k i l l ed i n I ndi an a when th e f r ei g ht he was car r y i ng shi fted f or w ar d and pie rce d the cab. The tr uck was decl ar ed a to ta l l o ss a nd pur ch as ed byi ts i ns ur er, S t. Pa ul M ercu ry Ins ura nc e C om p a n y . St. Pau l ap p li ed f or a Te nne ss ee c er ti fi ca te o ft i tl e as pr o o f o fi ts o wner sh i p, b ut did notapplyf ora sal vage ti tl e. Befo re Ten n essee i ssued the ti tl e t o St
. Paul, the tr uck c ha ng ed ha nd s s e v e r a l t i mes i n qu i c ks uc c e s s i o n. On J anuary13 , 20 04, S t. Paulso l d the t ruck to R an dy’s , an In d ia n a - b a se d ca r d ea ler , w h ich in t u rn so ld th e v eh icle nine da y s l a t e r t o Wes tS i de A uto Pa r t s , Inc . Wes tS i de bro ught the t ruck to i ts headqu ar ter s in Ow ensbo ro , K entucky

. Th e next m onth, o n Feb ruar y 2 6, 20 04, W estN o. 09

- 1675 3 Sid e s old th e v eh icle to D u c k e t t T ru c k C en te r, Inc . in Fa rm in gt on , M iss ou ri. A fterthes e t ra nsacti ons, but bef or e the truck was fi na l l y s o l d t o p l a i nt i ffS t o r i e , T e nn e s s e e iss ue d a cer ti fi cate o fti tl e t o St
. Paulo n M arc h 1 9, 20 04. On or ab o utApr i l 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , S t
. P a uls e ntthe t i t l e t o R a nd y’ s, w h ich d ulyf or w ar ded the ti tl e t o W estS i de, wh i ch in turn pa ss ed it ove r to Du cket t. N one ofthes e e nti ti es appli ed f ora sal vage ti tl e. On June 1 1, 20 04, Duckettso l d the t ruck to St or i e, an I l l i no i s r es i den t, who a ppl i ed f o r a n I l l i no i s ti tl e o n the tr uck. A fterdri vi ng the tr uck f orm or e than ei ghtee n mo n th s an d t wo - h u n d r e d th o u s a n d mi l e s , S t o r i e c l a i ms that he l ear ned ofthe vehi cl e’ s invol vem ent i n a f atal ac c id en t fo r th e firs t t im e. O n A u gu st 16 , 200 6, St or ie br o ug hts ui t ag ains t S t. Pa ul, Ra ndy ’ s, W es t Sid e an d Du c k e t t i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s Di s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t he Eastern Dis tr i ct o fM i sso uri
. S tor i e v ol untari l y di sm i sse d h is cl ai m s a gainst Randy’ s a nd W estS i de f orl ack of perso nal j uri sdic ti on. H e then r efi l ed hi s cl ai m s a gainst Ra nd y’ s a nd W estS i de i n the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fInd i ana. T he pres en t case co nc erns Stori e’s action agains t Ra nd y’s onl y. H e conte nd s that Rand y’ s vi ol ate d Ind

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) , wh i ch pro vi des: A ny o ther perso n acqui ring a w re cked ordam age d m oto r vehi cl e, m oto rcy cl e, se m i trai l er, o r re cre at i o na l v eh i cl e th atmeet s atleast o ne ( 1) o fthe cri ter i a set f or th in secti on 3 of thi s chapter, wh i ch acqui si ti on i s no t e vi de nced by a ce rt i fi cate o f sa lva ge tit le, s h all a p p ly to th e b u re au w ith in4 N o. 09

- 1675

Stori e’ s com plaintal le ges a violat ion o fInd. Cod e § 9- 22- 3- 1 11 (d) ( 20 04 ). T he statu te w as am en d ed in 20 06 , w i th th e resu lt th a t th e o l d su b se ct io n (d ) b ec a m e t h e n ew su b se ct io n (e). T he am en d m en t ha d no sub stan tiv e effect. thi rty- one ( 31) days afterr ecei p t ofthe cer ti fi cate ofti tl e fora cer ti fi cate o fsa l vage ti tl e. 1 S to r i e ar g ue s th atRa ndy ’ s “a cqui r ed” the t r ucko n J an uar y 1 3, 20 04 , w h en it p u rc h a s ed th e v eh icle from St. P au l. H e su bm its furth er th at R an d y’s lack of con tinu ing ow ne rship at th e ti m e i t r ec ei ve d the c er ti fi ca te o ft i tl e i s o fno m om ent. S tor i e thus conte nd s that the pro vi si ons of I nd

. Cod e § 9-22-3-11(e) w ere trigger e d and that Ran d y’s f ai l ure to apply f ora sal vage ti tl e v i ol ate d the s tatute. The dis tr i ct c ourtwas not convi nced. I t h eld that Ra ndy ’ s ha d no o bl i g at i o n un derIndi an a l aw to obta i n a sa l va ge ti tl e, o pi ni ngtha t “[ b] y the t i m e i t r ec ei ve d the t i t l e fr o m S t
. P a u l, i tn o l o n g e r o wn e d th e T r u c k, a nd th er efo re co u ld n oth av e o b ta in ed an y In d ian a t itle for it.” St or i e v. Randy’s Aut o S al e s , LL C, 2 0 0 9 WL 3 4 8 7 5 1 , a t* 2 ( S
. D. In d . Feb . 6, 200 9). It th u s g ra n te d su m m ar y jud gm en t in fav or of R an d y’s
. Id. In doi ng so, however, the cour t no ted th ati ts “ ho l di ngi s no t ne ce ss ar i l y c onsi st en t wi ththe presum ed purpose ofthe sal vage ti tl e r equi re m ent, wh i ch i s t o prot ect consum er s a gainst th e r i sks as soc i ate d w i th p u rc h as in g p re vio u sly w re c ke d ve h icle s w ith ou t k n ow ledge o fthei r hi sto ry . ” Id. at n.4. N everth eless, th e cou rt fel t unabl e to “ i m po se a s ta tu to r y duty wher e no ne exi sts
. ” Id. I n i ts opi ni on, the dist ri ct c ourto m itt ed re fer ence to f our ar gum ents advanced by Rand y’ s in i ts m oti on f orN o. 09

- 1675 5

su m m ar y jud gm en t, n am el y t h at Ind ian a’s sa lva ge tit le appli es onl y t o vehi cl es that w i l l be own ed and opera ted w i thi n I nd i ana, t hat Ind i ana l aw would f ol l ow the l aw ofthe ti tl i ng st ate , thati nsurance com panie s a re ga tek e e pe r s upo n who m de a l e r s ca n l e g a l l y r e l y a nd tha tInd

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) does notapplyto deal er s. S to r i e no w appe al s f r o m the e nt r y o fs um m ar y j udg m en t a g a i n s th i m.

I I . DI S C US S I ON S um m ar y j udg m en t i s pr o pero nl y i f“ th er e i s no g en ui ne i ssue ofm ate ri alf act and the m oving par ty i s en tit led to j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. ” F e d

. R
. C i v . P
. 5 6 ( c )
. We r ev i ew th e di st r i ct co ur t’ s g r an t o f su m m ar y j udg m en t d e n ov o. Se ePe t t s v. Rock l e dge Fur ni t ureLL C, 53 4 F
. 3d 715, 720 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. To the exte nt we ar e cal l ed upon to r ev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s i nt er pr et at i o n o fa s ta tu te , the st an d ar d of re vie w is lik e w i s e d e n ov o. Se eBoyd v
. Il li nois StatePo li ce, 384 F.3d 888 , 896 (7th C ir. 2004).

A . T h e A p p li c a ti on ofI n d . Cod e § 9-22-3-11(e) t o R an d y’s Does Ind

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) ’ s refe re nce t o “any othe r p er so n ” c ap tu re a for m er ow n er th at se lls a sa lva ge ve h icle bef or e i t r ecei ves t h e ce rt i fi cate o fti tl e? Accor ding to S t o r i e , i ti s i mm a t e r i a l wh e the r a n e nti ty tha ta c qu i r e d a w re ck e d v e hi c l e a c t ua l l y o wns i tu po n r e c e i pto fthe t i t l e. Its ob l i g a t ion to ap p ly for a c er tific at e o f sa lva ge tit le r emai ns una ffec te d. The di st r i ctc o ur t, i n c o nt r as t, f o und6 N o. 09

- 1675 th ata l ac ko fc o nt i nui ngo wner sh i p abs o l ve s ana cqui r i ng perso n of an y obl i gat i on t o apply f ora sal vage ti tl e when i t r ecei ves the c er ti fi cate o fti tl e. I nd

. Cod e § 9-22-3-11(e) is n o t a m od el ofclari ty. L iteral l y, i t s c o mm a nd tha t “ [ a ] ny o the r pe r s o n a c qu i r i ng a wr e c k e d o r d a ma g e d mo t o r v e h i c l e . . . s h a l l a p p l y t o t he bu r e a u . . . after r eceip t of th e certifi cate of titl e for a ce r ti fi ca te o fs al va g e ti tl e” mightc aptur e cur r en t an d f o r m er o wner s al i k e, as l o ng as th ey o nc e “a cqui r ed” the vehi cl e. S ecti on 11 m ake s no expl i ci t r efer ence to an ongo i ng r equi re m ent o fo w ners hi p. Yet, a var i etyo f ar gum ents suggest s that for m ero w ners m i ght ne ver thel ess be exem pt. Com peti ng i nter pr et ati ons ofthe sta tute l ead us t o c on c lu d e t h at it is am b igu ou s a n d th at it sh o u l d b e ce rt ified to th e In d ian a Su p re m e C ou rtp u rs u an t to ou r C irc u it Rul e 5 2. W e co ns i derthe r ea so ni ngtha t su ppo r ts the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s co ncl usi on be f or e co nsi deri ng tha t which opposes i t. The r e ar e a numbero fr easonabl e ar g um en ts tha t th e obl i gat i ons i m posed by Ind. C ode § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) ar e l i m i ted to cu rre n t o w n er s. Fir st, In d . C od e § 9-2 2-3 -4 s ta te s t h at th e b u re au w ill iss u e a ce rt ifica te of sa lva ge tit le as “ p ro of of o w n er sh ip .” This m i ght s ugges t that a n en tit y cannot orsho uld not apply f orsuch a cer ti fi cate i fi t no lo ngerow ns the sal vage v e hi c l e wh en itre c e i v e s the c e r t i fi c a t e o ft i t l e . Ind e e d, Se cti on 4 o nl y a l l ows “the ac quir i ng i nsurance com pany, dispos alf aci l i ty, o r perso n” to applyfora cer ti fi cate of s alv ag e t itle . I f th e v eh icle h as be en su b se q u en tl y so ldN o. 09

- 1675 7

A lthoug h “acquir ing” i s a som ew hat am biguo us term , i t does 2 se em to requir e som e change in ow ners hip or thatthe w rec ked ve h i c l e c h a n g e h a n ds i n s o me r e s p e c t
. T h e I n di a n a C o u r tof Appeal s ha s c l ar i fi ed thatanowne r whos e car is t ot al ed, but w ho r ecei ves a s et t l em en tfro m ani ns ur eran d dec i des to m aint ain poss es si on of the w rec ked vehicl e, does not “acquire ” it. A l l s t a t e Ins . Co. v. La r k i n’s Body S ho p & Aut o Care, 673 N
. E.2d 84 6 ( I nd. Ct
. App. 1 99 6). Suchanowne r the re f or e i s no t re q u ir ed to ap p ly for a sa lv a g e t itl e. Id. to a new party, i t i s no t e nti re l y c l earhow the f or m er own ercan then be chara cter i zed as “the acqui ring” par ty. Se cond, b eing a pre sent parti ci ple , “a cquir i ng” i m pli es that the l egi sl atur e e nvi si oned so m e for m o fsi m ult anei ty b e t we e n the a c t o f a c qu i r i ng a s a l v a g e v e hi c l e a nd r ecei vi ng the cer ti fi cate of ti tl e. This m i ght sugge st that 2 I nd i ana nev eri ntended fo r com panie s that acqui re sa l vage vehi cles to be bound by § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) i ftheyr ecei ve the c er ti fi cate s o fti tl e a ftertheyhave so l d the ve hi cl es. T hird , and perh ap s m ost im p ortan tly, the Ind iana C ou rt o f Appe a l s ha s he l d tha t a c qu i s i t i o n de no t e s o w ne r s hi p. Se eLa rki n’s Body S hop , 6 7 3 N
. E
. 2 d a t8 4 9
. I fth e s e t e r ms ar e in f act syno nym ous, then In d . C ode § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) re q u i re s “ any o therper son” owni ng a wreck ed or d am ag ed m ot or v e h icle to ap p ly for a sa lva ge tit le w ith in th irty- one da ys of receiving th e certific ate of ti tle. I f a per so n do es no t o w n the v eh i cl e when sh e r ec ei ve s th e ti tl e, then she w oul d no t be o bl i ged to applyf ora sal vage ti tl e. Befo r e pr o ce eding, a few wor ds o f ca ut i o n ar e i n order. One m i ght b e t em pted to l oo k t o the s ecti on’ s purpor ted8 N o. 09

- 1675

N everthel es s, s uch a heading is o nly “a short

- hand referenc e 3 t o the ge ne ra l s ubj ec tm at t erinvo l ved” and i s “n otm ea ntt o t ake the pl ac e ofthe det ai l ed pr ovi s i ons ofthe t ext. ” Trai nm en v. Ba l t i mo r e & Oh i o R. R. , 33 1 U .S. 5 1 9 , 52 8 (19 4 7 ). M o re o v er , a h ea d in g ca n n o t li m it t h e p la in m ea n in g o f th e t ex t. SeeInte l C orp. v. A dvance d M i cr o D evi ce s, Inc. , 542 U. S. 24 1, 25 6 ( 20 04 )
. Al though the “o fficial” title (as ind icated in the f or thco m ing text) sug g ests th a tS e c t i o n 1 1 d o e s n o ta p p l y t o e n t i t i es t h a tn o l o n g e r o wn w reck ed v eh icles w he n th ey receiv e the c e r t i fica tes of titl e, i t d o e s n o td e m a n d th a tc o n c l u s i o n . A r g u a b l y , S u b se c t i o n (e )’s referenc e to “any other person” i s suffic ie ntl y broad to capture f or m er ow ner s . I n a ny e ven t, we de c l i ne t o pl ac e wei ghton thi s ti tl e. A t fir st blush, ther e w ould appear to be a tens ion b et w een 4 W est’ s a nn ota ted title of In d . C od e § 9-22 -3-11, w hich p ro v id es: “Salvage t it le s; app li cat ions by insurer s, s el f

- ins urers or other p a rt ie s; o w n er su rr en d er s ce rt ific a te o f tit le ; C la ss D in fra ct io n,” and the “offic ial ” ti tl e on the h tt p://w w w . in. gov w ebsi te, w hich s i m pl y s t at es : “Appl i c at i on by i ns ur er or owner f or c er t i fi c at e of s a l va ge t i t l e . ” I twou l d s e e m tha tthe o ffi c i a l t i t le i s t o be p re fer re d

. SeeNei dow v. C as h i n a Fl as h, Inc. , 841 N
. E.2d 649, 654 (In d . C t. A p p . 20 0 6 ). ti tl e forgui dance. A fteral l, the U
. S. S up re m e C ourthas obs er ved thatthe ti tl e o fa se c tion can cl ar i fy a m bi gui ti es i n the l egi sl ati on’ s t ext. Se e IN S v
. N ational C ent erforIm m igrants ’ Rights , 50 2 U .S. 18 3, 18 9-0 9 (19 91 ). T h e “ offic ial” 3 ti tl e on the http: //w w w . i n. gov w ebsi te i s “A pp l i cat ion by in su re r or ow n er for c er tific at e of sa lva ge tit le.” T h is t itle 4 m ak es no refe r en ce t o f o r m ero wner s an d m i g htthus su gg es t t h at its rea c h be lim i t e d t o c u rre n t o w n er s. B u t it appe ar s th atthe r e i s i n f ac t no offi ci alt i tl e. The e na ct i ngN o. 09

- 1675 9 leg isla t i o n d oe s n otco n ta inh ea d in gs for t h e s ec tio n s. See In d . P u b

. L
. N o. 2-1 99 1, am e nde d b y I nd

. Pub. L. N o. 26 8- 20 03 & In d . P u b . L . N o. 11 0-2 00 6. T h e s ec tio n tit les w ou ld see m to have bee n added l ate r f orpurp oses o fcl ar i ty. Thi s be i ngthe c as e, we dec l i ne t o pl ac e wei g hto n the headi ng to Ind

. Cod e § 9- 22- 3- 11, wh i ch i s a vai l abl e a t the ht tp: //w w w . i n. govwebsi te. Despit e the pre cedi ng ba ses f ori nfe rr i n g that the r each ofInd

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) i s l i m i ted to curren t ow ners , th er e ar e so m e r es p ecta bl e ar g um en ts tha t su g g es t th e o ppo si te c o nc l us i o n. Fi rs t, the prece ding ar gum ents have i m port ant l i m i tati o ns . In Larki n’s Body S hop , f o r instan ce , the Indi an a Co u rt o f A pp eal s di d not ho l d that a cquis i ti on i s s ynonym o u s w ith ow n er sh ip for a ll p u rp os es . Larki n’s Body Shop , 67 3 N
. E.2 d at 8 49. Ind eed, the c ou rtnot ed that i ts h old in g w as sp ec ific t o th e c irc u m st an c es of th e c as e. Id. I n additi on, al though cer ti fi cate s of sal vage ti tl e o perat e as “pro ofo f own er shi p, ” so too do ce rt i fi cate s o fti tl e. Yet, it is c lea r th at an en tit y c an as sig n its ow n er sh ip int er es t in a ve hi cl e without i m m edi ate l y pr ov iding a ce rt i fi cate o f tit le. See In d . C od e § 9-1 7-3 -3; M adrid v. Bloo m in g to n Auto C o., Inc. , 7 82 N
. E. 2d 38 6, 3 95 ( I nd. Ct
. App. 2 00 3) ( ho l di ng that, under Ind i ana l aw , o w ne rs h i p can be tr ansfer re d co ns i st en t wi ththe UCC i r r es pec ti ve o fwhethe r the cer ti fi cate o fti tl e has bee n del ivered)

. Thus, deal er s ca n and, acco rdi ngl y t o Rand y’ s, r egular l y do sel l ve hi cl es10 N o. 09

- 1675

R an d y ’ s asser t s in its b rief that it is custom ary f or d ealer s to 5 sell ve hicles b efore re ceiv ing the c e r tificate o f title be cau se t h e y “ m ay b e w aiting w eek s or m on ths” b efore th e title arri ves. W e dire ctRan d y ’s t o Ind. Co de § 9- 17- 3- 3( b), w hich allo w s a lice n se d d e aler w ho d oe s no t yet p ossess a certificate oft i t l e t o s el l a veh i c l e t o a nothe r l i c en s ed de al ero nl y i fthe se ll er c an deliver thatti tl e withi n twenty-one day s ofthe s ale

. b efo re t h ey r ec eiv e t h e a ss oc iat ed ce rt ifica te s o f tit le. T h is 5 m eans that cer ti fi cate s of ti tl e, w hi ch os tensibl y a ct a s pro of ofo w ners hi p, ar e r outi nel y i ssued to f or m ero w ners . Se cond, § 9- 22- 3- 11( a) l i m i ts the s ecti on’ s a pp l i cati on t o “pers ons, ” who ar e defi ned as c er tai n i nsurance com pani e s . Ho we v e r, the r e mai nd e r o f S e c t i o n 1 1 a l s o r e fer s t o, and i m poses o bl i gat i ons up on, “o w ners , ” “ l i en- hol ders” and “sel f

- i nsured ent i ti es. ” These ap p earto be dist i nct fro m th e “ p er so n s” (i. e., ins u ra n c e c om p an i e s ) d efin ed in su bsec tion (a). Thu s, wh en subsect i on ( e) m ake s r efer ence to “an y othe r person , ” it w ou ld seem to r e fer to m ore th anthe “ per sons” ( i ns ur an ce c o m pan i es ) , o wner s, l i en hol ders and s elf- i nsured ent i ti es re fer enced abo ve. S uch al l

- en com p as singl an g ua g e co ul d r ea so nabl y b e co nsid er ed to ca p tu re form er ow n er s w h o s u b se q u en tly re cei ve cer ti fi cate s o fti tl e. Thir d, a l i ter a lr e a di ng o fsubse cti on ( e) m i ght e ncom pass A pp el l ee’ s a cquis i ti on in thi s ca se. The co m pany could sure l y b e c h aracte ri zed as “a cquir i ng” the tr uck wh en pu rchas i ng i t. R andy’s als o re cei ved the cer ti fi cate o fti tl e. Pursuant t o the l i ter alco m m and ofthe subsecti on, i t was ar g uabl y r equi r ed to a ppl y f o r a s al va g e ti tl e. Thi s co nc l u-N o. 09

- 1675 11 si o n i s b ols te r ed bythe pur po se unde r l y i ngthe sta tute, w hi ch i s presum abl y to prot ect consum er s from in n oc en tly p u rc h as i n g w re c ke d ve h icle s. Seegene rally Le wis v. H orac eM ann Ins . Co. , 4 1 0 F
. S up p. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 5 9 ( N. D. Ohio 2005 ) ( chara cter i zi ng anothe r sta te’ s sal vage ti tl e l aw i n thi s w ay ); O ’B r i e n v . B. L. C. Ins . Co. , 76 8 S
. W
. 2d 64, 70 ( M o . 1 9 8 9 ) ( s a me)
. I fc a r de a l e r s o r o the r se l l e r s c a n e v a de the c om m and ofth e sta tute by si m plyse l l i ng a sal vage veh icl e before the ce rtificate of titl e a r r ive s, th e ent ire pur po se o fthe l eg i sl at i o n c anb e r ea di l y d efe at ed. The I nd i ana S up re m e Cour t has h el d that a m bi guous sta tutes sh o ul d be co ns true d “s o as to ar r i ve at th e ap par en t i nten ti on o fthe l egi sl atur e. ” D aguev. Pip e rAi r craf tCorp. , 418 N
. E
. 2d 207, 210 (I nd

. 1981). N otab ly, the d istri ct cou rt i nd i cate d t h at i ts i nter preta ti on was i n so m e t ensi on with th e un d er lyin g pu rp os e of t h e s t at u te
. Stori e, 2 0 0 9 WL 348751, at* 2 n. 4. Give n thes e d i ffi cul ti es, w e find Ind. C ode § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) to be a m bi guous. W e concl ud e that the quest i on r ai sed by th e pr es en t ca se m ay be st be an swe r ed by th e I ndi an a Su p re m e C ou rt
. See A m o co P rod . C o . v. Laird , 62 2 N
. E.2 d 91 2, 9 1 5 (In d . 199 3) (h old in g t h at Ind ian a c ou rt s w ill on ly en g ag e i n s ta tu to r y i nt er pr et at i o n i f th e l an g ua g e o fthe st at u te is am b igu ou s); see a lso A riz o na ns fo r O fficia l E ng lish v. Arizona , 520 U .S. 43 , 79 (1 99 7); Tran s am e r i ca Ins . Co. v. H e n ry, 9 04 F
. 2d 38 7, 3 90 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. Be f o r e we c ertify th i s que st i o n, ho wev er, we m us t fi r sta sc er ta i n whe th erthe iss u e is o u t c om e-d et er m in at ive
. SeeShir ley v. R uss el l , 69 F.3d 839 , 844 (7th C ir. 1995).12 N o. 09

- 1675 B . Th e In terp reta tion of In d . Co d e § 9 - 22 -3-1 1(e ) Is O utco m e- D et erm i nati ve A lth ou gh w e c o n c l u d e t h at Ind . C od e § 9-2 2-3 -11 (e) is am bi guous and besti nter prete d b y th e S up re m e Cour t o f I ndi an a, we ca n o nl y c er ti fy the que st i o n i fthe pr es en t c as e t u rn s on th e m ea n in g of t h is s ta tu te
. See Sh irley, 69 F.3d at84 4; Henry, 90 4 F
. 2d at 390. I n i ts re sponse bri ef, Randy’s pre sente d a n u m b ero f add i ti onal ar gu m ents i n f avo r ofi ts posi ti on. A l though th e d ist ric t cou rt d id n ot c on sid er th es e arg u m e n t s in i ts sum m ar y j ud gm ent r uling, we m ay consi der them b ec au se ou r re vie w is d e n ov o. SeeStut le r v. Il li nois D ept. of Cor r e ct i ons , 263 F.3d 698 , 703 (7th C ir. 2001). Th e fi rs t, a nd f o un da t i o na l, que s t i o n i s wh e the r Ind

. Code § 9

- 22

- 3- 11 ( e) i n f act appl i es t o Ra ndy ’ s i n the prese nt cas e. There se em s l i ttl e q u es tio n that i t doe s. Because the di str i ct c ourt ’ s s ubj ect m att erj uri sdic ti on w as base d on div er sit y, the f or um st ate ’ s cho i ce o fl aw ru les d e t e r m in e t h e a p p lica b le s u b st an tiv e la w . See Sou nd of

M us i c Co. v. 3M , 477 F.3d 910 , 9 1 5 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ). H ere, th e ch oic e o f law ana lysi s is straight forw ard

. Stori e brou gh t the pres en t action in th e South ern Di str i cto fIndi an a, a l l eg i nga v i o l at i o n o fa n Indi an a sta tute. I t i s wel l

- est abl i shed “that Ind i ana l aw appli es to a cl ai m under an I nd i ana s tatute. ” A l l e n v . Gr e atA m. Re s e r v e Ins . Co. , 7 66 N. E. 2d 11 57, 1 16 6 ( I nd. 2 00 2)
. The onl y quest i on i s whether the I nd i ana s tatute a pp l i es to th e fa c ts alleg ed in t h e c om p lain t. Id. Ind

. Co de § 9

- 2 2

- 3- 11( e) cl ear l y a p p lies to the f acts o fthe prese nt cas e. R an d y’s

— anIndi an a r es i den t

— pur ch as ed an d s o l d the sa lva ge ve h icle in In d ian a, th u s c o n d u c tin g a c tiv itie s inN o. 09

- 1675 13 I ndi an a th ata r e di r ec tly regul at ed unde r the Indi an a sta tute. St or ie s u b m it s t h at th e In d ian a s av ag e t itle law on ly appli es to vehi cl es that ar e t o be ow n ed and oper ate d w i thi n I nd i a na, c i t i nga de c i s i o n o fthe Uni t e d S t ate s D ist ric t C ou rt for th e Sou th er n D ist ric t o f Ind ian a. Se eRi ha v. St at eFa r m M ut ual Aut om ob i l eIn s . Co. , 20 07 W L 42976 (S. D
. Ind

. J an . 3, 2007). Riha pla ced deter m i nati ve w ei ght o n I nd

. Code § 9- 17- 2- 1( a)
. T hi s p r o v i s i o n, wh i c h a pp e a r s i n a s e pa r a t e Ch a pt er from the one th at govern s s alvage veh icl es, requ ires every perso n w ho both beco m es an Ind i ana r esi dent and own s a ve h icle th at w ill b e op er at ed in Ind ian a t o ob ta ina c er tific at e o f tit le w ith insix ty d ay s. It is n otatall cle ar h ow th is p rovisi on ca n be read to reli eve “an y othe r person acq uiri ng” a wrecke d vehi cl e in I nd i ana o fthe re sponsibi l i ty to apply f ora sal vage ti tl e when that vehi cl e w i l l n ot be use d i n-s tat e. Ind

. Code § 9- 17- 2- 1( a) si m plyr eq u i re s new I nd i ana r esi dents to ob ta i n I nd i ana ce rt i fi cate s o fti tl e for thei r vehi cl es. I t s ays nothi ng ab ou t the si tuati on o fan enti ty that acqui re s a wrecke d vehi cl e forthe pu rp ose o f I nd

. Cod e § 9-22-3-11(e)
. S to r i e n e x tu r g e s th i s c o u r tt o r e l y o n a n d f o l l o w a d ecision of th e U nited States D istri ct C ou rt forthe E astern D ist ric t o f M iss ou ri, w h ich h eld th a t I n d ian a la w w ou ld re q u ire th e a p p lica tio n of th e la w of th e t i t l i n g s ta te
. See Stori e v. D uckettTruck C ent er, Inc. , 20 07 W L 4 3 7 9 1 74 ( E. D. M o. D ec . 13, 20 07 ). D uckett

— a ca se br o ug ht by A ppel l an t aga i nst the co m pany thatso l d him the tr uck

— f ocuse d on I nd

. Code § 26- 1- 9. 1- 316. The D uckett cour t co ncl ud ed fro m th is provision tha t I nd iana w o u ld l ook to Ten ne ssee’s14 N o. 09

- 1675

The Eas t er n Di s t ri c tofM i s s our i obs er ved that“[ m ] ot or 6 v eh icle s . . . m ay b e b ou g ht in on e state, sold in an oth er, regis- (co n tin u ed ...) sal vage ti tl e s tatutes, gi ven that the l att erj uri sdic ti on i ssued the vehi cl e’ s ce rt i fi cate o fti tl e. I nd. Co de § 2 6- 1- 9. 1- 31 6 pr o vi des tha t the l o ca l l aw o fthe j urisd iction “un d er w hos e c ertificate of title th e g ood s are co ve r ed g o ve r ns per fec ti o n, th e effec t o f per fec ti o n o r no npe r fe c t i o n, a nd the p r i o r i t y o fa s e c ur i t y i nt e r e s ti n g o o ds cove re d by a cert i fi cate of ti tl e. ” Id. The D uckett co ur t th us i nfe rr ed that, under Ind i ana la w , the t i tl i ng st ate ’ s l aw si m i l ar l y g ove rns the obl i gat i on to apply f or a sal vage ti tl e. W e are not con vince d that the M issouri fed eral court’s in fer en c e in D u ck et twas cor re ct. A l though the st atute spe ci fi es tha t the ti tl i ngst at e’ s l aw g o ve r ns pe r fec ti o n a nd pri or i ty ofa secur i ty in teres t in a v ehi cl e, nowh er e doe s th e statu te ind icate th a t t h e titl ing state ’s l aw covers anythi ng m or e than that. N ei therthe U ni f or m Com m er ci al Code nor the In d ian a Code pro vi des thatan e nti ty that ac qui r es a sa l va g e ve hi cl e i n I ndi an a i s su bj ec t to the sal vage ti tl e law s of the t i tl i ng st ate
. Ind eed, and quit e t o the c o nt r a r y, Ind

. C ode § 9

- 2 2

- 3

- 1 1 ( e ) e xp l i c i t l y de man ds that “[ a] ny o therper son acqui ring a w re cked ordam age d mot o r v e hi c l e . . . s ha l l a pp l y t o the b ur e a u . . . a ft e r r e c e i pt of t h e c er tific at e o f tit le for a c er tific at e o f sa lva ge tit le.” In th e a b se n c e o f a p ro vis ion th at su gg es ts oth er w ise , i t w ou ld se em od d to r ea d th e s ta tu te in a w ay th at w ou ld ab s o l v e a n I nd i a na de a l e r o fi t s o b l i g a t i o ns to ab i de by Ind iana sa lva ge titl e law s w he n it hap p en s to pu rchase a ve hi cl e that i s t i tl ed by anothe r sta te. 6N o. 09

- 1675 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 t er ed i n a thi rd, an d dam age d i n a f our th, c re at i ng a m yr i ad of ch o ice ofl aw i ss ues. ” D u ck ett, 2 0 0 7 W L 4 3 7 9 1 7 4 , a t * 6
. In concl ud ing that the l aw ofthe ti tl ing s tat e applie s, the court w as p resu m ab ly try ing to inje ct som e certa inty into an oth erw ise nebu lous bod y ofconfl ic ti ng st ate law. H ow ever, the prof fered s ol ution w ould be e ffec t i ve onl y i fal l s t at es appl i ed the sal vag e l aw s ofthe ti tl ing stat e. In any ev ent, w e find § 26- 1- 9. 1- 3 1 6 to h a v e o n ly a t en u o u s re la tio n sh ip w ith § 9 -2 2 -3 -1 1 (e). R an d y’s finall y argue s th a t ins ura nc e com p an ies are gat eke epers up on w hom deal er s can l ega l l y re l y an d that I nd

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) does not apply to deal er s. N ei ther ofthes e co ntenti ons has m er i t. Fi rs t, no sta tutory provi si on that w e can fi n d sugg est s that I nd

. Code § 9-22-3

- 11( e) appli es onl y t o deal er s. I nd eed, the l i ter al l anguage of that provi si on, wh i ch speak s t o “a nyo the r pe r s o n, ” s ug g e s t s qui t e the o pp o s i t e . S e c o nd , I nd i ana can l egi ti m ate l y requi re tho se oper ati ng withi n i ts j uri sdic ti on t o com plywith i ts s alv age ti tl e l aw s. Dep en d ing on the relevan t state ’s law , an ou t-of- s t a t e i ns uran c e c om p a n y m ay be ab le t o a c q u ire a w re c ke d ve h icle w i thout havi ng to applyf ora sal vage ti tl e. But “any othe r perso n acqui ring” that v eh i cl e in I nd i ana i s r equi re d by I nd

. Code § 9- 22- 3- 11( e) to applyf ora sal vage ti tl e o nce i t r ecei ves the c er ti fi cate o fti tl e ( subj ect onl y, o fco urse , to the qu estion w he th er ongoing ow ne rship i s requ ired). S i n c e we d e c l i n e t o f o l l o w Riha a nd D uckett, and beca use we c oncl ude tha t Ra ndy ’ s was pr o per l y s ubj ec t to the provi si ons ofthe I nd i ana sal vage ti tl e, the inter preta ti on o f16 N o. 09

- 1675 I nd. Co de § 9- 22

- 3- 11 ( e) i s det er m inati ve o fthe pr es en t case . S i nce there i s no cl ear contr ol l i ng I nd i ana pre cedent, it i s ap p rop riate to certify this issue to th e Sup rem e C ou rt of Ind iana u nd er both Ind iana R ule of A p p ell ate P roced ure 64 and our Cir cui t Rul e 5 2.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON W e ce rt i fy t o the Ind i ana S up re m e Cou rt t h e quest i on w hether an enti ty that pu rchas es and l ate r sel l s a wrecke d v e hi c l e i s r e qu i r e d to applyf o r a s a l v a g e t i t l e u nd e r Ind

. C od e § 9

- 2 2

- 3

- 11 (e) w h en it n o lon ge r ow n s t h e v eh icle up on r ecei pt ofthe cer ti fi cate o fti tl e. The c l er ko fthi s Cou r t sh al l t r an smi t th e br i ef s an d append i ces i n thi s ca se as w el l as a copy o fthi s opini on t o the S up re m e Cour t o fInd i ana. Q U E S T I ON C ERTI FI ED .

12- 17- 09