Opinion ID: 59472
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Erie Guess

Text: The parties agree that Nevada law applies to this diversity action. [2] See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78-80, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Because of the absence of authority from the Nevada Supreme Court, we must make an Erie guess about how the Nevada Supreme Court would evaluate the causation and economic loss arguments related to the negligence claim. [3] Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co. v. Canal Indem. Co., 352 F.3d 254, 260 (5th Cir.2003). In the absence of a final decision by the state's highest court on the issue at hand, it is the duty of the federal court to determine, in its best judgment, how the highest court of the state would resolve the issue if presented with the same case. Id. In making the Erie guess, we may consider, among other sources, treatises, decisions from other jurisdictions, and the majority rule. Am. Indem. Lloyds v. Travelers Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 335 F.3d 429, 435 (5th Cir.2003). In that effort, [a]bsent evidence to the contrary, we presume that the [Nevada] courts would adopt the prevailing rule if called upon to do so. Turbo Trucking Co. v. Those Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 776 F.2d 527, 529 (5th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted) (first alteration in original).