A husband got into a heated argument with his wife. During the course of the argument, he fired a hand gun, and the bullet ricocheted off the floor and hit her, causing her instant death. The man was charged with second degree murder but instead was permitted to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter under a plea agreement with the county prosecutor. A State A statute provides that voluntary manslaughter is “an intentional or reckless killing committed under the effect of extreme emotional distress.” The plea agreement stated that the husband “intentionally killed the wife while under the effect of extreme emotional distress,” but contained no other details. The State A judge, in accepting the plea, required the husband to make an oral allocution before the court, whose purpose was to assure the court that there was a “factual basis” for the plea; the judge concluded that there was such a basis, though the husband in the allocution denied that he had intended for the bullet to strike his wife. Meanwhile, the husband was the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy bought by the wife on her own life. The policy contained a “homicide clause,” which provided that the insurer would not be liable under the policy if the insured's death was the result of a voluntary act by the insured or her spouse committed with the intent of causing the insured's death. In reliance on this clause, the insurer refused to make payment on the policy. The husband, a State A resident, filed suit in a State A state court to establish his right to the policy proceeds. The insurance company, as a non-citizen of StateA, properly removed to the federal district court for StateA,The husband and the insurer have agreed to have the case decided by the federal judge rather than a jury.The insurer has moved for summary judgment, based on the theory that the husband's guilty plea conclusively established the fact that he intentionally killed the wife, thereby making the policy's homicide clause applicable. State A follows the prevailing national approach to issue preclusion. The federal Court of Appeals for the circuit that includes StateA, acting in cases where the court was free to make its own determination about whether issue preclusion applied, has issued opinions taking that same prevailing national approach to issue preclusion. How should the federal court rule on the insurer's motion?