Opinion ID: 689957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Does state or federal law control?

Text: 27 It is undisputed that this action is governed by state law. However, the presence of state law issues will weigh in favor of abstention only in rare circumstances. Moses H. Cone, 460 U.S. at 26, 103 S.Ct. at 942. This court has recently held that the issue of whether environmental cleanup costs are a type of damages covered by a standard form CGL policy is one of these rare circumstances. Employers Ins., 23 F.3d at 1376. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Employers Insurance analysis applies with equal force to this case, we find that the pendency of the Diaz Refinery case before the Arkansas Supreme Court eliminates any potential weight of this factor in favor of abstention. 28 The district court may easily await the pending decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court. See Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 4246 (1982 & Supp.1994) ([T]here is no problem if a federal court merely postpones decision for a time to await an opinion of the state court in an action already pending.). Thus, we believe that the fact that state law governs this case does not provide a reason for abstention. This factor cannot be afforded any significant weight. 29