Case ID: f-appx_500/html/0701-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and Gary Lewis, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. James Nalder, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and Gary Lewis, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. United Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 11-15010, 11-15462.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 7, 2012.
    Filed Dec. 17, 2012.
    Thomas Christensen, Esquire, David F. Sampson, Esquire, Christensen Law Offices, LLC, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Matthew John Douglas, Esquire, Douglas M. Rowan, Esquire, Thomas E. Winner, Esquire, Atkin Winner & Sherrod, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs James Nalder, guardian ad litem of his daughter Cheyanne Nalder, and Gary Lewis appeal from the district court’s grant of Defendant United Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. United Automobile Insurance Company cross-appeals from the district court’s denial of United Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for attorney’s fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse in part and affirm in part.

We reverse the district court’s grant of United Automobile Insurance Company’s motion for summary judgment with respect to whether there was coverage by virtue of the way the renewal statement was worded. Plaintiffs came forward with facts supporting their tenable legal position that a reasonable person could have interpreted the renewal statement to mean that Lewis’s premium was due by June 30, 2007, but that the policy would not lapse if his premium were “received prior to expiration of [his] policy,” with the “expiration date” specifically stated to be July 31, 2007. We remand to the district court for trial or other proceedings consistent with this memorandum. The portion of the order granting summary judgment with respect to the statutory arguments is affirmed.

United Automobile Insurance Company’s cross-appeal regarding attorney’s fees is moot in light of our disposition. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of attorney’s fees. Electro Source, LLC v. Brandess-Kalt-Aetna Grp., Inc., 458 F.3d 931, 941 (9th Cir.2006).

Each party shall bear its own costs.

REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.