CERTIFICATE FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA, PURSUANT TO RULE XII OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICES THEREOF:

I. STYLE OF THE CASE

The style of the case in which certification is made is Dennis Marchesani, Trixie Tina Marchesani, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Safety National Casualty Corporation, Crescent Hosiery Mills, Intervenors-Ap-pellants, versus Pellerin-Milnor Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This case involves a determinative question of state law; federal jurisdiction is based solely on diversity of citizenship.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The parties stipulated that Dennis Mar-chesani, a domiciliary of Tennessee, was employed with Crescent Hosiery Mills at its facility in Niota, Tennessee; on August 25, 1998, while in the course of his employment, Marchesani was walking past a pressurized apparel dye machine manufactured by Pellerin-Milnor (“Milnor”), a Louisiana corporation, when “suddenly and without warning, the door of the machine blew open, releasing hot, caustic chemicals and steam throughout the immediate area,” resulting in Marchesani’s alleged injuries. The parties further stipulated that all of Marchesani’s medical treatment as a result of the accident has taken place in Tennes*425see, and that Marchesani has been receiving workman’s compensation benefits in Tennessee.

Marchesani and his wife, Trixie Tina Marchesani, filed a products liability suit against Milnor in federal district court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging negligent manufacture and design of the pressurized dye machine. Marchesani contends that his alleged injuries were caused by a design defect that permits the machine to be operated even though the door is not completely secure. The suit was timely filed under Louisiana law. Milnor denied liability and moved for summary judgment on the ground that Tennessee law, which restricts products liability suits to claims brought within ten years following the date the product was first purchased for use,1 applies to the Mar-chesanis’s claims, making their action time-barred. The Marchesanis countered that Louisiana law should govern their action, and in the alternative that the Civil Code’s conflict-of-laws articles on prescription (statutes of limitation) and peremption (statutes of repose)2 require that Louisiana’s own law of prescription, under which the Marchesanis’s claims are timely filed, should apply in this instance. Without mentioning these conflicts articles, the district court granted Milnor’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that (1) Tennessee’s substantive law applies to the merits of the Marchesanis’s claim, (2) Tennessee’s products liability statute of repose is substantive, ergo (3) the Marchesanis’s action is time-barred.3

On appeal, the Marchesanis argue that (1) the substantive law of Louisiana, not Tennessee, should govern this action and (2) even if Tennessee’s substantive law does apply to their claims, article 3549 of the Civil Code, which delineates the conflicts analysis for issues of prescription and peremption, should be applied in pari materia with articles 35424 and 3515,5 *426which outline the conflicts analysis for tort claims, to determine whether Tennessee’s statute of repose bars their claims. The Marchesanis emphasize that Article 3549 “reafflrm[s] ... the basic rule of the lex fold [law of the forum] for actions that have been filed timely under Louisiana prescription or peremption law” and should be applied so as to “promote whatever substantive policies [Louisiana] has in not providing for a shorter prescriptive period[.]”6 Thus, insist the Marchesanis, only when “it is amply demonstrated that neither set of policies is actually implicated ... and that the opposing substantive policies of another state, that of the lex causae [law of the situs], are implicated more intimately”7 are the Louisiana policies embodied in prescription and peremption not entitled to preference in a Louisiana court.

In contrast, Milnor contends that article 3549 is not pertinent because Tennessee’s statute of repose is not procedural but substantive,8 and is an essential and inseparable part of Tennessee’s products liability law. In the alternative, Milnor points out that article 3549 also provides that, even though an action that would be time-barred under the law of another state could proceed in a Louisiana court and not be time-barred by Louisiana’s law of prescription and peremption, the claim should nevertheless not go forward in Louisiana if “the maintenance of the action in [Louisiana] is not warranted by the .policies of [Louisiana] and its relationship to the parties or the dispute nor by any compelling considerations of remedial justice.”9 Accordingly, contends Milnor, even if a straightforward application of Article 3549 would otherwise permit the Marchesanis’s claims to advance under Louisiana’s law of prescription and peremption, this action should nevertheless not go foiward in Louisiana because maintenance in this state is not warranted by either Louisiana’s policies or any compelling considerations of remedial justice.

The parties’ contentions raise important issues of Louisiana law and policy that arise under Louisiana’s unique statutory conflict-of-laws regime and that have not been squarely addressed by Louisiana courts. Therefore, they are most properly addressed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana and the Honorable Justices thereof.

III. QUESTIONS CERTIFIED

1. Does the substantive law of Louisiana or Tennessee govern this action?

*4272. If Tennessee’s substantive law governs, does Tennessee’s statute of repose bar this action or does Louisiana Civil Code Article 3549, coupled with Louisiana policy considerations, require maintaining this action in Louisiana?

IV. REPRESENTATIONS

We disclaim any intention or desire that the Supreme Court of Louisiana confine its reply to the precise form or scope of the questions certified. The answer provided by the Supreme Court of Louisiana will determine the sole issue of this appeal: May the Marchesanis’s action go forward in Louisiana or is it time-barred by Tennessee’s statute of repose?