United States Court of Appeals
                       For the First Circuit


No. 23-1168

                            BRIAN SMITH,

                       Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                 v.

              PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

                        Defendant, Appellee.


          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

           [Hon. Mary S. McElroy, U.S. District Judge]


                               Before

                  Rikelman, Lipez, and Thompson,
                          Circuit Judges.


     George E. Lieberman, with whom Gianfrancesco & Friedemann was
on brief, for appellant.
     Ian H. Morrison, with whom Seyfarth Shaw LLP was on brief,
for appellee.

                          December 6, 2023
          RIKELMAN, Circuit Judge.    Brian Smith sued Prudential

for breach of fiduciary duty after it terminated his long-term

disability benefits under an insurance policy it issued.    Although

the policy specified a three-year limitations period to file a

lawsuit, it also, inexplicably, started the limitations clock on

the date Smith was required to submit proof that he was disabled,

not on the date Prudential allegedly breached the policy         by

stopping payment.   As a result, the clock had already run out by

the time Smith sued.

          Smith now appeals from the entry of summary judgment

against him on the ground that his lawsuit was filed too late.   He

asks us to reverse based on three arguments litigated by the

parties below but not addressed by the district court, including

a potentially winning argument that enforcing the limitations

scheme in this case would violate Rhode Island public policy.

There are compelling reasons for concluding that the limitations

scheme here may indeed run contrary to Rhode Island public policy,

and holding so would mean a ruling in Smith's favor.   But because

we believe that reversing and remanding on that ground arguably

would amount to an expansion of Rhode Island law, we certify the

public policy question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.




                              - 2 -
                              I.      BACKGROUND

                              A.   Relevant Facts1

            Brian Smith, a Rhode Islander, was an accountant and

vice president for tax operations of Comverse Technology when he

began experiencing symptoms of cognitive decline in 2015.                         After

a     neuropsychologist       diagnosed       Smith    with      mild     cognitive

impairment, Smith sought the care of an occupational physician,

who    determined    that     Smith   could    no     longer    work     as   a    tax

professional.      Smith left his job on October 31, 2015.

            Shortly    thereafter,     Smith     filed   a     timely    claim     for

benefits under his long-term disability policy with Prudential.

Prudential approved his claim and began paying Smith on January

30, 2016.       Smith received a monthly benefit of $3,000 for nearly

two and a half years until Prudential notified him on May 3, 2018,

that his benefits had been terminated effective the next day.

After exhausting his right to internal appeals with Prudential,

Smith received his final denial notice on August 28, 2019.

            Smith's insurance policy does not include a single,

stand-alone provision specifying a date by which Smith had to sue

Prudential after a denial or termination of benefits.                   Instead, it

includes    a    mystifying    six-step   calculation          ("the    limitations


       Because Smith appeals from a grant of summary judgment to
       1

Prudential, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to
him as the non-moving party. Minturn v. Monrad, 

, 14
(1st Cir. 2023).

                                      - 3 -
scheme") requiring Smith and other beneficiaries to