
    ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mercedes ZOTA, Miguel Zota, Defendants-Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellees, Lighthouse Intracoastal, Inc., Jack Farji, an individual, Broward Executive Builders, Inc., Defendants-Appellees, R.A. Brandon & Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant.
    Nos. 05-13457, 05-14671.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 16, 2008.
    Louise H. McMurray, Douglas M. McIntosh, Robert C. Weill, McIntosh, Sawran, Peltz & Cartaya, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Essex Ins. Co.
    Harriett R. Galvin, Miami, FL, Matthew Douglas Weissing, Weissing Law Firm, Pompano Beach, FL, Michael David Kap-lan, Zebersky & Panye, LLP, Hollywood, FL, Scott Alan Mager, The Mager Law Group, P.A., Mara Shlackman, Law Offices of Mara Shlackman, P.L., Ft Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Salyer, Miami, FL, for Appellees.
    Leonard Michael Billmeier, Jr., Galloway, Brennan & Billmeier, P.A, Tallahassee, FL, John R. Catizone, Litchfield Cavo, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Amicus Curiae.
    Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HODGES, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable William Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

Previously in this case we certified five unsettled questions of state law to the Florida Supreme Court. Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota, 466 F.3d 981 (11th Cir.2006). That Court has responded with an opinion that thoroughly discusses and decides the primary state law question that we certified. Essex Ins. Co. v. Zota, 985 So.2d 1036, 2008 WL 2520879 (Fla. June 26, 2008). As the Florida Supreme Court opinion explains, the answer it gave to the first certified question moots the second one, and it partially answers the fifth one. Id. at 1041, 2008 WL 2520879 at *3. The Court determined that the remaining issues we certified cannot be decided from the summary judgment record without additional findings which the district court has not yet made. Id.

We express our gratitude to the Florida Supreme Court and, as a result of its decision, vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with that decision and with our previous opinion in this case. See Zota, 466 F.3d at 990 n. 1.

VACATED AND REMANDED.  