the district court erred in dismissing [the plaintiffs] claims with prejudice whether or not the Georgia expert-affidavit requirement applies in diversity cases, [it] need not decide in which category [procedural or substantive] the requirement belongs.” Brown v. Nichols, 8 F.3d 770, 773 (11th Cir.1993). Several courts have concluded that state statutory efforts to limit malpractice or professional-negligence claims using expert-affidavit or certificate-of-merit requirements do conflict with the federal rules. See Baird v. Celis, 41 F.Supp.2d 1358, 1361-62 (N.D.Ga.1999); Braddock v. Orlando Reg’l Health Care Sys., Inc., 881 F.Supp. 580, 581-84 (M.D.Fla.1995); Boone v. Knight, 131 F.R.D. 609, 611 (S.D.Ga.1990); see also Gates v. L.G. DeWitt, Inc., 528 F.2d 405, 411 (5th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Comparing the Texas certificate-of-merit
holding that legal injury occurred for purposes of negligence action against insurance agent when insurance company rejected the claim holding that plaintiff could recover medical fees not actually paid by the insurance company pursuant to an insurance contract holding a georgia law requiring a plaintiff in a direct action against an insurance company to attach a copy of the insurance policy to his complaint inapplicable because it conflicts with rule 8 holding that under georgia law a holder of a master insurance policy is an agent of the insurance company and not the insurer holding the insurance company discharged its fiduciary duty when it established the retained asset account in accordance with the insurance policy