Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02213/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02213-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

, FILED . Unk,d St1,a Coun of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 211990 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

') 

) 

) 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v . ) No. 89-2213 

) (D.C. No. 88-302-M) 

GUADALUPE CORDOVA, Personal 

Representative of the Estate of 

Juan Jose Cordova, 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Alan B. Johnson, District 

District Court for the District of 

designation. 

Judge, 

Wyoming, 

United States 

sitting by 

This diversity action arises out of the death of Juan Cordova 

in an accident with an uninsured motorist and the subsequent 

attempt by his estate to recover uninsured motorist benefits from 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company under policies 

issued to Cordova's parents. The estate argued in this court and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-2213 Document: 010110041437 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 1 
' 

below that Cordova was entitled to coverage under these policies 

pursuant to the policies' resident relative coverage provisions 

and also as a result of certain representations made to Cordova 

and his mother by State Farm representatives. The district court 

disagreed, rejecting the first claim on summary judgment and the 

representation claims, which were based on theories of estoppal 

and New Mexico's doctrine of reasonable expectation, after trial. 

The estate timely appealed both decisions. 

We found this to be a difficult case, particularly with 

respect to the resident relative coverage question. In light of 

the uncertainty under New Mexico law regarding the extent of such 

coverage in the context of state-required uninsured motorist 

insurance, we certified this question to the New Mexico Supreme 

Court. That court declined our certification request, however, 

thereby requiring us to review the district court's determination 

of this state law issue. 

Although this court has applied a number of different 

standards in reviewing a local district court judge's 

interpretation of state law, see, e.g., Wilson v. Al McCord, Inc., 

858 F.2d 1469, 1473 (10th Cir. 1988)(some deference); Mullan v. 

Quickie Aircraft Corp., 797 F.2d 845, 850 (10th Cir. 1986)(clearly 

erroneous); Rhody v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 771 F.2d 1416, 1419 

(10th Cir. 1985)(great deference), we have consistently accorded 

at least some deference to the local judge's state law 

determination. See id. In this close case, this presumption in 

favor of the district court's interpretation of New Mexico law 

persuades us to affirm that interpretation and the district 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2213 Document: 010110041437 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 2 
• 

court's consequent conclusion that Cordova was not an insured 

under the resident relative coverage provisions of his parents' 

State Farm policies. In so doing, we recognize that the United 

States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on the issue of the 

proper standard governing review of state law determinations made 

by local district court judges, see Russell v. Salve Regina 

College, 890 F.2d 484 (1st Cir. 1989), cert. granted in part, 110 

S. Ct. 3269 (1990), but decline to delay our decision pending the 

outcome of that case. 

We also affirm the district court's rejection of the estate's 

estoppal and reasonable expectation claims for substantially the 

reasons stated by the district court. In affirming the district 

court's judgment on the reasonable expectation claim, however, we 

do not rely on the district court's holding that this doctrine may 

only be applied to interpret unambiguous policy provisions, see 

.... P=r=i=b=b=l=e _ __,.;;.v...a.._-..A=e'-"'t=n=a.__--=L=i=-=f=e'---=I=n=s'-".-..a:Ca.a:oa..:... , 501 P . 2 d 2 5 5 , 2 6 0 ( N. M. 

1972)(recognizing several circumstances in which unambiguous 

policy provisions may be subject to the doctrine of reasonable 

expectation), and we rely instead on the district court's 

alternate ground that the coverage representations made to 

Cordova's mother were limited only to the period during which 

Cordova was actually serving in the National Guard. 

For the reasons cited above, the judgment of the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2213 Document: 010110041437 Date Filed: 08/21/1990 Page: 3