No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Transcription

1 No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, LOUISIANA SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF TIMBERMEN -- SELF INSURERS FUND, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON, Defendants-Appellants. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION and LOUISIANA SAFETY ASSOCIATION OF TIMBERMEN, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S.D.C. Case Nos A and A The Honorable John V. Parker United States District Judge APPELLANTS EN BANC REPLY BRIEF JAMES M. GARNER ALAN D. EZKOVICH JOSHUA S. FORCE EZKOVICH & CO., LLC SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1220 KLEIN & HILBERT, L.L.C. New Orleans, Louisiana Poydras Street, 28th Floor (504) New Orleans, Louisiana (504) Attorneys for Appellants CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, LONDON

2 TABLE OF OF CONTENTS TABLE OF OF AUTHORITIES ii I. INTRODUCTION II. ARGUMENT A. LSAT LSAT Wrongly Wrongly Suggests Suggests That the That Reinsurance the Reinsurance Contracts Are Domestic in Nature in Nature and, and, Thus, Thus, This Case Does Not Implicate International Concerns B. Important Legal Reasons Exist to to Distinguish the the Court s Court s Preemption Analysis Under the the Convention and and FAA FAA C. LSAT Avoids Answering the the Question Posed Posed by the by the Panel - Why Should an an Implemented Non-Self-Executing Treaty Be Treated Any Differently Than Than a Self-Executing Treaty? D. Applying State Law Would Directly Directly and and Significantly Undermine the United States International Obligations Under the Convention III. CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF OF COMPLIANCE WITH WITH TYPE- TYPE- VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATE OF OF SERVICE

3 TABLE OF OF AUTHORITIES CASES Page(s) American Ins. Ass n v. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003) , 5 Edwards v. Daugherty, 883 So. 2d 932 (La. 2004) F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. Inc. v. v. General Mar. Mar. Catering Catering Co., Co., 688 So.2d 199 (La.App. 4 4 Cir. Cir. 1997) 1997) Ledee v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184 (1st Cir. 1982) McDermott Int l, Inc. Inc. v. Lloyds v. Lloyds Underwriters of London, of London, 944 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1991) , 10 Medellín v. v. Texas, U.S., 128 S. S. Ct. Ct (2008) Missouri v. v. Holland. 252 U.S. 416, 40 S. S. Ct. 382, 64 L. Ed. 641 (1920) Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S. S. Ct. Ct. 3346, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1985) , 6 Safety Nat l Cas. Corp. v. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s, at Lloyd s, London, London, 543 F.3d 744 (5th Cir. 2008) Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., Co., 417 U.S. 506, 94 S. S. Ct. 2449, 41 L. Ed. 2d 270 (1974) , 9-10 ii

4 TABLE OF OF AUTHORITIES - Continued Continued Stephens v. American Int l Ins. Ins. Co., Co., 66 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 1995) Thanh Long P ship v. v. Highlands Ins. Ins. Co., Co., 32 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. 1994) United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) Wilburn Boat Co. Co. v. v. Fireman s Fund Fund Insurance Co., Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955) STATUTES, CODES, AND AND TREATIES TREATIES 9 U.S.C.A. 201 (West 1999) LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 22:435(A)(3) (Special Pamphlet 2009) 2009) OTHER AUTHORITIES SEN. EXEC. DOC. E., 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968) iii

5 I. INTRODUCTION LSAT s brief brief reiterates its contention its contention that the that Panel s the opinion Panel s directly opinion directly conflicts with Stephens v. v. American International Insurance Co., Co., 66 F.3d 66 F.3d 41 (2d 41 (2d Cir. Cir. 1995), requiring en en banc review. LSAT LSAT Br. Br. at 2. at Strangely, 2. LSAT LSAT spends spends little more little more than a paragraph discussing Stephens and fails to to respond directly to Underwriters to arguments for distinguishing and and rejecting Stephens. See See id. id. at at 25, 27. LSAT wrongly suggests, moreover, that the reinsurance contracts are not truly international under under the Convention and, therefore, ignores the the important reasons reasons for distinguishing for the the preemption analysis under the the Convention and and FAA. FAA. Likewise, Likewise, LSAT LSAT goes to goes great to great lengths in an attempt to demonstrate that the Convention is is a non-self-executing treaty but ultimately fails fails to to explain why why this this Court Court should should apply apply a different a different analysis analysis to a to a later-in-time, implemented non-self-executing treaty treaty than a than self-executing a self-executing treaty. treaty. Because no legal basis exists for for doing doing so and so and refusing refusing to follow to follow the Convention the Convention would greatly undermine the the United States States international obligations, obligations, Underwriters Underwriters respectfully request the the Court to to reverse the the District Court s Court s holding. holding. II. ARGUMENT A. LSAT LSAT Wrongly Wrongly Suggests Suggests That the Reinsurance That the Reinsurance Contracts Are Contracts Are Domestic in Nature in Nature and, and, Thus, Thus, This Case This Does Case Not Does Implicate Not Implicate International Concerns. LSAT argues that little differentiates the the facts facts of of this this case case from a a domestic case. Id. at Similarly, LSAT LSAT contends contends that the that resolution the resolution of the question of the question before this before this

6 Court will not not have have any any international international impact. impact. Id. at 12-14, Id. at , Both of 24. theseboth of these assertions are factually and legally wrong. First, LSAT seeks to blur the distinction between the the international nature of of this this transaction and a domestic insurance transaction. This This confusion confusion is mere is mere slight slight of of hand meant to distract the Court from the real issues. LSAT mischaracterizes the the facts of this case as domestic by by ignoring the the most most important fact. fact. LSAT LSAT did not did obtain not obtain its reinsurance in Louisiana or, or, in in fact, fact, in the in the United United States. States. Instead, LSAT went outside the the United United States States to purchase to purchase reinsurance reinsurance from from Underwriters in in England.1 1 LSAT had had to to purchase its its reinsurance in in the the foreign excess excess and surplus lines market because the the reinsurance it sought it sought was not was available not available in in Louisiana.2 2 See LA. LA. REV. STAT. ANN. 22:435(A)(3) (Special (Special Pamphlet Pamphlet A 2009) A 2009) (allowing surplus lines lines insurance insurance only if only insurance if insurance may not may be obtained not be from obtained from authorized insurer). As As excess excess and and surplus surplus lines lines carriers, carriers, Underwriters Underwriters are treated are treated differently than domestic carriers and and are are not not subject to to the the same rules and regulations for filing rates and and forms as as domestic carriers. Contrary Contrary to LSAT s to LSAT s argument, argument, the the 1 1LSAT asserts that the policies were issued for for delivery in Louisiana in Louisiana and the and the broker and the insured were located in in Louisiana. LSAT LSAT does does not advise not advise the Court, the Court, however, that the the reinsurance contracts were were negotiated in London in London or that or it that had it a had a Lloyd s broker representing its its interests in in London and and negotiating there there on on its its behalf. behalf. 2 2In its brief, LSAT acknowledges that that it purchased it its insurance its in the in excess the excess and surplus lines market. See See LSAT Br. Br. at 7. at 7. 2

7 Louisiana Insurance Code provides little little regulation of surplus of surplus lines lines insurance. insurance. See See Edwards v. Daugherty, So. So. 2d 2d 932, 932, (La. (La. 2004). 2004). Second, LSAT s argument focuses wrongly on on the the parties supposed contacts with Louisiana. This This dispute dispute does does not revolve not revolve around around which which state state has the has mosthe most significant contacts. See See LSAT at at Likewise, Likewise, the Court the Court is not Erie-bound is not Erie-bound to to follow Louisiana law law on on the the preemption question question before before it. Compare it. Compare id. at 4 id. withat 4 with United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324, (1937). Even Even if this if this Court Court were were to look to look to state law, however, the only state-court decision directly on on point point rejected rejected LSAT s LSAT s argument. See F.A. Richard & Assocs., Inc. v. v. General Mar. Mar. Catering Co., Co., So.2d So.2d 199, 202 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1997). Regardless of of the the contacts with with Louisiana or where or where the reinsurance contracts were delivered, the Convention the Convention applies applies to the to parties the parties arbitration agreement because one of of the the parties is is not not an an American citizen citizen and and their their commercial relationship has has a a reasonable relationship to to a foreign a state. state. See See Ledee Ledee v. v. Ceramiche Ragno, 684 F.2d 184, (1st (1st Cir. Cir. 1982). 1982). Lastly, LSAT completely misreads the the Supreme Court s Court s holding holding Scherk in Scherk v. v. Alberto-Culver Co., Co., U.S. U.S (1974). (1974). See LSAT See LSAT Br. at Br. at The Supreme The Supreme Court made clear clear that that the the goal goal of the of Convention, the Convention, and the principal and the purpose principal purpose underlying American adoption and and implementation of it, was of to it, encourage was to encourage the the recognition and enforcement of of commercial arbitration agreements agreements in international international 3

8 contracts and to to unify the the standards by by which which agreements to arbitrate to arbitrate are observed are observed... in signatory countries. 417 U.S. at at 520 (emphasis added). Scherk Scherk expressly expressly rejected the imposition of of parochial limitations limitations the on enforcement the enforcement of arbitration of arbitration agreements as LSAT requests this Court to to do. do. See See id. id. B. Important Legal Legal Reasons Reasons Exist to Exist Distinguish to Distinguish the Court s the Court s Preemption Analysis Under Under the Convention the Convention and FAA. and FAA. LSAT implores this this Court Court to apply to apply its FAA its precedent FAA precedent to the Convention to the Convention because it can find no reason to to distinguish between them them in this in this case. case. See See LSAT LSAT at at 8. LSAT also also continues to to claim claim that that Stephens justifies its position its position despite despite failing failing to to provide an an articulate response to Underwriters to arguments arguments for distinguishing for distinguishing and and rejecting Stephens. LSAT is again is again wrong wrong both on both fronts. fronts. Important Important legal reasons legal reasons exist for enforcing the the Convention in this in this case case even even if the if the Court Court would would not enforce not enforce a a similar arbitration agreement in in a domestic a insurance policy. policy. Most importantly, unlike the the FAA FAA and and as the as the Second Second Circuit Circuit recognized recognized after after Stephens, the McCarran-Ferguson Act Act does does not not extend extend to foreign to foreign commerce. commerce. See See Underwriters Br. Br. at at 14-16, LSAT LSAT does does not address not address this argument this argument at all at in all its in its brief. Nevertheless, in attempting to distinguish to distinguish the Supreme the Supreme Court s Court s holding holding in American Insurance Association v. v. Garamendi, U.S (2003), LSAT implicitly recognizes why the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not require reverse-preemption here. 4

9 See LSAT Br. at at The The McCarran-Ferguson Act Act cannot cannot be construed be construed to allow to allow state law to reverse-preempt a a treaty because it it addresses domestic commerce only, only, not foreign commerce. Cf. Cf. Garamendi, U.S. U.S. at 428. at 428. Thus, Thus, different different rules rules apply apply to matters under the Convention and the the FAA. As As demonstrated in section in section D, below, D, below, LSAT wrongly asserts that that this this case does not not involve foreign affairs affairs or have or have an effect an effect outside the United States. Moreover, even if if the policies underlying the the Convention and and FAA FAA are are similar, similar, that does not mean they apply equally to to international and and domestic domestic contracts. contracts. See See Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. v. Soler Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., Inc., U.S. U.S. 614, 614, (1985). (1985). Even LSAT concedes Mitsubishi s holding holding that the that enforcement the enforcement of the parties of the parties advance agreement on a forum acceptable to both is even more important in in contracts where the parties come from different countries, noting noting the the need need for for predictability in in the resolution of of the the parties disputes in international agreements. LSAT LSAT Br. at 10 Br. at 10 (emphasis added). LSAT admits admits that that such such an international an international flavor flavor may cause may cause the the court to reach a a different conclusion in determining whether whether Congress Congress intended intended to to preclude arbitration in in cases such as as this this one. one. Id. Id. at 11. at 11. The The international nature nature of of the parties reinsurance contracts necessitates the the enforcement of their of their arbitration arbitration agreements even assuming a contrary result would be be forthcoming in the in domestic the domestic context. Mitsubishi, U.S. U.S. at 629; at 629; see see also also LSAT LSAT Br. at Br. 10. at 10. 5

10 LSAT mistakenly contends, however, that that nowhere did did [Mitsubishi] apply apply any any presumption with regard to the to the determination of congressional of congressional intent to intent preclude to preclude arbitrability. LSAT LSAT Br. at Br. 10. at The 10. Supreme The Supreme Court held, Court in fact, held, precisely in fact, theprecisely the opposite of what LSAT suggests. Mitsubishi concluded that that Congress had had established a presumption that it it did did not not intend to to exclude a class a class of cases of cases from from the the Convention, e.g., insurance, unless it it expressly said said so, so, and, and, thus, thus, courts courts should should not recognize not recognize subject-matter exceptions to to the the Convention if Congress if had had not not expressly instructed them to do so. 473 U.S. at at 639 n.21. The The fact fact that that Congress Congress could could have have excluded excluded insurance, as LSAT suggests, only proves the the point - this this Court Court should should not not create create an an insurance exception to the Convention because Congress did did not not expressly recognize such a subject-matter exception. See See LSAT LSAT Br. Br. at 46. at 46. C. LSAT LSAT Avoids Avoids Answering Answering the Question the Question Posed by the Posed Panel by - the WhyPanel Why Should an Implemented Non-Self-Executing Treaty Treaty Be Treated Be Treated Any Any Differently Than Than a Self-Executing a Treaty? Treaty? LSAT spends a a significant portion portion of its of brief its brief discussing discussing self-executing self-executing and and non-self-executing treaties and and arguing that that the the Convention is a is non-self-executing a treaty. See id. at at This This discussion fails fails to address to address the the primary primary question question before before the Court. The The question before before the Court the Court is not is whether not whether Convention the Convention is selfexecuting or or what preemptive effect, effect, if any, if any, unimplemented an non-self-executing treaty would have on on a a conflicting state state law. law. The The question question is what is what preemptive preemptive effect is self- effect 6

11 a later-in-time, implemented treaty treaty has has on conflicting conflicting state law. state See law. Medellín See Medellín v. v. Texas, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 1346, 1366 (2008) (noting that that implementing legislation gave United States international obligations under under Convention domestic domestic effect ). effect ). Importantly, LSAT does not not claim that, under the the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Act, state state law would trump a later-in-time self-executing treaty. treaty. LSAT LSAT fails, fails, however, however, to answer to answer the question posed by the Panel. Specifically, if state if state law law would would not not reverse-preempt a self-executing treaty, why why should should it reverse-preempt it an implemented an implemented non-selfexecuting treaty? See See Safety Nat l Nat l Cas. Cas. Corp. Corp. v. Certain v. Certain Underwriters Underwriters at Lloyd s, at Lloyd s, non-self- London, 543 F.3d 744, (5th (5th Cir. Cir. 2008). 2008). LSAT s lengthy recitation of the of the holdings holdings Foster, in Foster, Percheman, Percheman, Arredondo, Arredondo, and Medellín is, therefore, unhelpful as as none of of those cases is is directly on on point. None None of those cases even considered, let alone decided, how to to answer the the question before this Court. See LSAT Br. Br. at at 29-36, This This Court Court should should hold, hold, as the as Panel the Panel did, did, that that no legal basis exists for allowing state state law law to reverse-preempt to the the Convention. Indeed, Missouri v. v. Holland, U.S. U.S (1920), (1920), held held that that it is it not is sufficient not sufficient to say, as as LSAT does, does, that that the the Convention Convention only has only domestic has domestic effect through effect its through its implementing legislation. See See id. at id at LSAT completely LSAT completely ignores this ignores case this case although both the Panel and Underwriters cited cited it. Missouri it. Missouri recognized recognized that even that if even if Congress could not preempt state insurance laws through a general Act of of Congress, 7

12 it could through a a treaty and and a congressional a act. act. See See Missouri, Missouri, U.S. U.S. at at (upholding constitutionality of Migratory of Bird Bird Act and Act associated and associated treaty). treaty). Here, the Here, the implementing legislation expressly provides provides that the that Convention the Convention... shall. be.. shall be enforced in United States courts U.S.C.A (emphasis added). Thus, Thus, the the Court should hold that that the the Convention preempts the the Louisiana statute statute issue. at issue. D. Applying Applying State State Law Would Law Directly Would and Directly Significantly and Significantly Undermine Undermine the United States International Obligations Obligations Under Under the Convention. the Convention. Contrary to to LSAT s assertion, the the resolution resolution of the of parties the parties dispute dispute directly directly implicates international concerns because because it affects it affects the fulfillment the fulfillment of the United of the United States international commitments under under the Convention. the Convention. By adopting By the adopting the Convention, the United States committed to the to other other Contracting States States to enforce to enforce it. Consequently, as as in in Garamendi, not applying not applying the Convention the Convention here would here would significantly affect the the United States States conduct conduct of foreign of foreign affairs affairs and commerce. and commerce. See See SEN. EXEC. DOC. E., 90th Cong., 2d Sess. at 1 (1968) (President supported adoption of the Convention because it it would promote international trade trade and and investment). LSAT wrongly argues that that the the McCarran-Ferguson Act Act is an is an explicit statement that international concerns do do not not predominate. LSAT LSAT Br. at Br. 12. at The 12. McCarran- The McCarran- Ferguson Act does not not represent either either an an explicit explicit or implicit or implicit statement statement about the about the international concerns in in this this case case because it does it does not not extend extend to foreign to foreign commerce, commerce, 8

13 which LSAT has has not not denied. Therefore, the Court the Court should should not apply not apply the McCarran- the McCarran- Ferguson Act to the international reinsurance contracts at at issue to to allow Louisiana law law to reverse-preempt the Convention. The international concerns in this in case this case are not are limited not limited to the effect to the thateffect that application of of state law law would would have have on the on the United United States States international international obligations obligations under the Convention. This This case case also also directly directly implicates implicates important important international international business considerations. In In McDermott International, Inc. Inc. v. Lloyds v. Lloyds Underwriters of of London, 944 F.2d 1199, 1209 (5th (5th Cir. Cir. 1991), 1991), this this Court Court expressed expressed a great a great concern concern that not enforcing the the Convention could could jeopardize jeopardize the international the international arbitration arbitration agreements of United States citizens in in other disputes. See See also also id. id. at at ( If ( If state state courts refuse to promptly enforce arbitration agreements in Convention in cases, cases, other other signatory nations could cite cite the the Convention s reciprocity clause clause to justify to justify departing departing from the Convention in in cases involving citizens citizens of states of states with with recalcitrant recalcitrant courts. ). courts. ). McDermott s concern for for reciprocity applies applies with with equal equal force force in this in case. this case. Similarly, a a refusal to to enforce international arbitration arbitration agreements, agreements, as LSAT as LSAT urges, would not only frustrate the predictability of of international business transactions but would also lead to to destructive forum forum shopping. Scherk, Scherk, U.S. U.S. at at If If a party believed a U.S. court would not enforce an an arbitration agreement, it it might seek seek an order from a a foreign court court enjoining suit suit here. here. As Scherk As Scherk observed, observed, the dicey the dicey 9

14 atmosphere of of such such a legal a legal no-man s-land would would surely damage surely damage the fabric the of fabric of international commerce and and trade, trade, and imperil and imperil the willingness the willingness and ability and of ability of businessmen to enter into international commercial agreements. Id. at Id at 517. LSAT s reliance upon upon the the holding holding Wilburn in Wilburn Boat Co. Boat v. Fireman s Co. v. Fireman s Fund Fund Insurance Co., 348 U.S (1955), is is likewise misplaced. See See LSAT LSAT Br. at Br at Wilburn Boat did did not not hold hold that that federal federal law must law must always always bow to bow state to regulation state regulation of of insurance or or that that federal federal courts courts should should ignore ignore the importance the importance of national of and national and international uniformity in in the the rules rules governing transnational insurance contracts. State State insurance law does does not not apply apply to a to marine a marine insurance insurance contract contract where there where is an there is an entrenched federal precedent. Thanh Thanh Long Long P ship P ship v. Highlands v. Highlands Ins. Co., Ins. 32 Co., F.3d 32 F.3d 189, (5th Cir. Cir. 1994). 1994). The The Convention Convention represents represents just such just an such entrenched an entrenched federal rule, thereby necessitating its its application to to the the reinsurance contracts at at issue. issue. The Court should should enforce enforce the parties the parties arbitration arbitration agreements agreements to ensure the to ensure the Convention s uniform application, without parochial interference by individual by individual states, states, which this Court has previously held is is essential to to international business transactions of this kind. See See McDermott, F.2d F.2d at at III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Underwriters respectfully request request that the that Court the reverse Court the reverse the holding of of the the District Court Court and and enforce enforce the the parties parties arbitration arbitration agreements. agreements. 10

15 DATED: April April 27, , Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. GARNER (# (# 19589) 19589) JOSHUA S. S. FORCE (# (# 21975) SHER GARNER CAHILL RICHTER RICHTER KLEIN & & HILBERT, L.L.C. L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, 28th Floor New Orleans, Louisiana Telephone: (504) Facsimile: (504) and - ALAN D. D. EZKOVICH (# 1865) (# 1865) EZKOVICH & CO., & CO., LLC LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1220 New Orleans, Louisiana Telephone: (504) Facsimile: (504) Attorneys for Appellants CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, AT LLOYD S, LONDON 11

16 CERTIFICATE OF OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE- WITH TYPE- VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS 1. This brief complies with with the page the limitation page limitation of Fed. R. of App. Fed. P. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(A) because it it does not not exceed fifteen (15) (15) pages. pages. 2. This brief complies with with the the typeface requirements of Fed. of Fed. R. App. R. App. P. P. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of of Fed. R. R. App. P. P. 32(a)(6) because this this brief brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using using WordPerfect 10 in in 14- point Times New Roman font. font. JOSHUA S. S. FORCE Attorney of of Record for for Appellants CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S, AT LLOYD S, LONDON Dated: April 27, 27,

17 CERTIFICATE OF OF SERVICE SERVICE Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 25(d), I hereby I certify that that the the above and foregoing APPELLANTS EN EN BANC BANC REPLY REPLY BRIEF BRIEF has been has been served served on on the following counsel by by depositing two two (2) (2) paper paper copies and and an an electronic copy copy in the in the First-Class United States Mail, properly addressed and and postage prepaid, this this 27th 27th day day of April 2009: Joseph John Bailey, Esq. William E. E. Scott, III, III, Esq. Esq. PROVOSTY, SADLER, Michael P. P. Wilson, Esq. Esq. DELAUNAY, FIORENZE & SOBEL & SOBEL WATSON, BLANCHE, WILSON WILSON & & 934 Third Street, Suite POSNER Alexandria, Louisiana North Boulevard Baton Rouge, Louisiana Andrew K. K. Epting, Jr., Jr., Esq. Esq. ANDREW K. K. EPTING, JR., JR., L.L.C. L.L.C. 3 State Street Charleston, South Carolina I hereby certify further that that the the APPELLANTS EN BANC EN BANC REPLY REPLY BRIEF BRIEF has been has been filed with the the Clerk Clerk of Court of Court by hand by delivering hand delivering an original, an original, twenty (20) twenty papers (20) papers copies, and an electronic copy to to the the Clerk of of Court, Court, this this 27th 27th day day of April of April JOSHUA S. S. FORCE 13