BRENDA J. BOHANNON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; W.B. DAVIS, JR., AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GEORGIA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; MRS. ROSETTA PRESCOTT, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; CLAUDE AND THERESA NIX, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; LESTER C. MAY, JR., AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, V. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY AND PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

11th Cir. | 1988-06-20
Nos. 86-8432 to 86-8434, 86-8521 and 86-8593
Before HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
847 F.2d 740 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1988) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM:

Following oral argument in these cases, we certified the question raised to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Bohannon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 824 F. 2d 950 (11th Cir.1987). The Supreme Court of Georgia has now answered the question of Georgia law raised in this interlocutory appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bohannon, 258 Ga. 131, 365 S.E. 2d 838 (1988).

The district court certified plaintiff classes in these cases based upon the determination that the insurance policies involved provided no-fault coverage. This court granted leave to appeal this important and controlling question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We certified the ques tion to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which has found that the named plaintiffs’ policies provided no-fault coverage. The court further stated: “[a]s to all the other members of the class we cannot say, but must leave that to be resolved on a contract-by-contract basis.” Id. 365 S.E. 2d at 841 (footnote omitted). The district court’s certification of the plaintiff classes relied upon the finding that the class members’ policies provided no-fault coverage. In light of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s contract-by-contract analysis, the nature of each potential class members’ coverage must be evaluated. We therefore vacate the district court’s orders certifying the plaintiff classes and remand for further consideration of the certification issue consistent with the guidance provided by the Supreme Court of Georgia.

VACATED and REMANDED.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Armstrong v. Martin Marietta Corp., 138 F.3d 1374 (11th Cir. 1998)
    …egal issue of district court’s supplemental jurisdiction as well as discretionary Rule 23 issues); Grayson, 79 F. 3d 1086 (grounding review of grant of class certification on several specified, certified legal issues); Bohannon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 847 F. 2d 740 (11th Cir.1988) (reviewing class certification based on specified, certified issue of contract interpretation under Georgia law); Kirkpatrick, 827 F. 2d 718 (addressing “fraud-on-the-market” issue as well as Rule 23 issues in Rule 10b-5 securities f…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw