
    Timothy A. TABOR; Debra J. Tabor; Farmers Insurance Group, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The METAL WARE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Nesco American Harvest, a Minnesota corporation; Newco of Two Rivers, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants.
    Nos. 05-4155, 05-4156.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Oct. 18, 2007.
    Tim Dalton Dunn, John W. May, Dunn & Dunn, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    
      Brian C. Webber, Richards, Brandt, Miller & Nelson, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendants.
    Before KELLY and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges, and EAGAN, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Claire V. Eagan, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Appellants Timothy and Debra Tabor and Farmers Insurance Company appeal from an order entered May 20, 2005, granting appellee Metal Ware Corporation summary judgment on products liability claims filed against American Harvest, a company whose assets Metal Ware acquired in 1997. The district court concluded that 1) Utah law would not impose strict liability on successor corporations for defective products sold by the predecessor corporation, and 2) that Utah law would, however, recognize an independent post-sale duty to warn by successor corporations. The court held, as a matter of law, that the Tabors could not establish that Metal Ware’s failure to warn caused their damages.

On May 26, 2006, we certified questions of state law to the Utah Supreme Court in this matter. On August 31, 2007, the court responded. See Tabor v. Metal Ware Corp., 168 P.3d 814, 585 Utah Adv. Rep. 23 (Utah 2007). We have since received supplemental briefs from the parties addressing the impact of the Utah Supreme Court’s decision.

Upon consideration of the response to our certified questions and the briefs filed in response to our order dated September 12, 2007, we VACATE the district court’s order entered May 20, 2005 and the judgment entered that same day, and REMAND for additional proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Utah Supreme Court. We make no comment on the outcome of those proceedings, and defer to the district court with respect to the appropriate scope of the proceedings. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     