No. 19-1719 ALTHEA JOHNSON, individually and as Heir and Natural Guardian of Carlton Johnson; CARLTON JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

HORACE JOHNSON; STATE ROAD AUTO SALES, INC.; ARBELLA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants, Appellees.

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

[Hon. John J. McConnell, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Thompson, Stahl, and Barron, Circuit Judges.

Ronald J. Resmini, with whom Law Offices of Ronald J. Resmini, Ltd. was on brief, for appellants.

Thomas A. Pursley, with whom Stephen E. Navega, II and Lynch & Lynch were on brief, for appellee Arbella Mutual Insurance.

Lisa De Mari, with whom Heffernan & De Mari, P.C. was on

 While this case was argued to a panel that included Judge Stahl, he did not participate in the issuance of this opinion. The remaining two panelists therefore issued this opinion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). brief, for appellees Horace Johnson and State Road Auto Sales.

January 19, 2022 THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. This case has its genesis in a car accident involving Horace Johnson ("Horace"), the driver, and Horace's cousin, Carlton Johnson ("Carlton"), the sole passenger in the car Horace was driving.1 A lawsuit against Horace, his insurer, and the company from which Horace had leased the vehicle followed;2 Carlton and Carlton's mother, individually and on Carlton's behalf, sued to recover damages for the serious injuries Carlton sustained in the accident.3 The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted summary judgment on all claims, and Carlton appealed. The case was briefed and argued to us in due course on February 4, 2020. As we'll explain in more detail in the pages to come, a critical component of one of the appellate issues concerned an important and unsettled matter of Rhode Island law, so on March 13, 2020, we certified a question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 6 of Rhode Island's Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Johnson v. Johnson, 952 F.3d 376, 377 (1st Cir. 2020), certified question

1For clarity, we use the parties' first names throughout our opinion; as always, we mean no disrespect. 2 The case began in the Rhode Island state court system, but the defendants (appellees here) removed it to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. 3 Carlton's mother, Althea (who is referred to in this record as both "Althea" and "Altima"), sought to recover damages in her individual capacity via loss of consortium and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Those claims were dismissed below, but their dismissal is not challenged on appeal. In today's opinion, for the sake of simplicity, we refer to appellants collectively as "Carlton."

- 3 - answered, No. 2020-105-M.P., 2021 WL 5996413 (R.I. Dec. 20, 2021). On December 20, 2021, the Rhode Island Supreme Court supplied its answer. See Johnson, 2021 WL 5996413, at *5. Equipped with that, we are now in a position to render our opinion on Carlton's appeal.

In doing so, we'll follow our customary route of laying out the relevant facts of the case (reproduced here based in large part on our Certification Order), explaining what happened below, then tackling the arguments advanced on appeal. Here's the spoiler, though: This will be an affirmance across the board.

FACTS AND TRAVEL

The facts in this case are not contested; regardless, we always recount them in the light most favorable to the nonmovant (here, that's Carlton), and we will "resolv[e] all reasonable inferences in his favor