Steven Holper v. Ace American Ins. Co.

Ninth Circuit

Steven Holper v. Ace American Ins. Co.

650 F. App'x 357

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 17, 2016

Docket14-16438

StatusUnpublished

This text of 650 F. App'x 357 (Steven Holper v. Ace American Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steven Holper v. Ace American Ins. Co., 650 F. App'x 357 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

The Holpers appeal the district court’s summary judgment granted to Ace American Insurance Company in their attempt by way of a liability claim to recover for injuries suffered by Steven Holper in a boating accident caused by his wife, Kara. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal, and we affirm.

The district court concluded that the disputed liability claim is precluded by an unambiguous policy exclusion which denies coverage if injury to the named insured (Steven) is caused by a person to whom Steven granted express permission to operate the boat. This exclusion is commonly known as the “household exclusion.”

The Holpers do not challenge the court’s holding that the policy exclusion is not ambiguous. Instead, they rely on an unpersuasive argument not advanced in the district court, i.e., that “the doctrine of reasonable expectations should supercede the unclear contract language and provide coverage for Dr. Holper’s injuries.” By not raising this issue in the district court, the Holpers forfeited it. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007). In any event, the “reasonable expectations” doctrine does not apply to unambiguous policy provisions. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Young, 108 Nev. 328, 832 P.2d 376, 379 n. 3 (1992) (the “reasonable expectations” doctrine only applies if a policy is ambiguous).

In the alternative, the Holpers contend that the “ ‘household exclusion’ in the policy ... is invalid on public policy grounds.” They base this argument on Nev.Rev.Stat. § 687B.147, which requires such an exclusion in cases involving passenger cars to include the precise names of persons excluded for the exclusion to be valid. This argument is defective on its face. NRS 687B.147 applies to passenger cars, not to watercraft.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to certify this issue for decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We also do not believe that certifi *358 cation is necessary in this uncomplicated straightforward case.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

The Holpers appeal the district court’s summary judgment granted to Ace American Insurance Company in their attempt by way of a liability claim to recover for injuries suffered by Steven Holper in a boating accident caused by his wife, Kara. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal, and we affirm.

The district court concluded that the disputed liability claim is precluded by an unambiguous policy exclusion which denies coverage if injury to the named insured (Steven) is caused by a person to whom Steven granted express permission to operate the boat. This exclusion is commonly known as the “household exclusion.”

The Holpers do not challenge the court’s holding that the policy exclusion is not ambiguous. Instead, they rely on an unpersuasive argument not advanced in the district court, i.e., that “the doctrine of reasonable expectations should supercede the unclear contract language and provide coverage for Dr. Holper’s injuries.” By not raising this issue in the district court, the Holpers forfeited it. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n. 3 (9th Cir.2007). In any event, the “reasonable expectations” doctrine does not apply to unambiguous policy provisions. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Young, 108 Nev. 328, 832 P.2d 376, 379 n. 3 (1992) (the “reasonable expectations” doctrine only applies if a policy is ambiguous).

In the alternative, the Holpers contend that the “ ‘household exclusion’ in the policy ... is invalid on public policy grounds.” They base this argument on Nev.Rev.Stat. § 687B.147, which requires such an exclusion in cases involving passenger cars to include the precise names of persons excluded for the exclusion to be valid. This argument is defective on its face. NRS 687B.147 applies to passenger cars, not to watercraft.

Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to certify this issue for decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We also do not believe that certifi *358 cation is necessary in this uncomplicated straightforward case.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 F. App'x 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-holper-v-ace-american-ins-co-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack