Opinion ID: 1253894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Certification to the Kentucky Supreme Court

Text: The decision whether or not to utilize a certification procedure lies within the sound discretion of the district court. Transam. Ins. Co. v. Duro Bag Mfg. Co., 50 F.3d 370, 372 (6th Cir.1995) (citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974)). Certification is most appropriate when the question is new and state law is unsettled. Id. (citing Lehman Bros., 416 U.S. at 390-91, 94 S.Ct. 1741). As the Tenth Circuit has noted, however, the federal courts generally will not trouble our sister state courts every time an arguably unsettled question of state law comes across our desks. When we see a reasonably clear and principled course, we will seek to follow it ourselves. Pino v. United States, 507 F.3d 1233, 1236 (10th Cir.2007). We first note that the Penningtons failed to request certification of the legal question at issue when the case was before the district court. Likewise, on appeal, the Penningtons failed to request certification until well after the parties had completed briefing. Both this court and district court have therefore expended considerable time and resources addressing the question currently before us. And although the legal question here is one of first impression under Kentucky law, we believe that the relevant caselaw addressing UIM premiums and stacking provides sufficient guidance to allow us to make a clear and principled decision. Because we see no reason to trouble the Kentucky Supreme Court under such circumstances, we deny the Penningtons' motion to certify and will address the merits of the case.