Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-09-16487/USCOURTS-ca9-09-16487-1/pdf.json

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

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE

COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RANDALL K. FAEHNRICH,

individually and as natural parent

and/or legal guardian of RANDY

FAEHNRICH and CHRISTIAN

FAEHNRICH, minors; TONI A.

FAEHNRICH, individually and as

natural parent and/or legal guardian

of RANDY FAEHNRICH and

CHRISTIAN FAEHNRICH, minors;

DOES I THROUGH X; ROE BUSINESS

ENTITIES I THROUGH X; inclusive,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16487

D.C. No.

2:05-cv-01067-

BES-PAL

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

October 6, 2010—San Francisco, California

Filed May 7, 2014

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 1 of 22
2 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

Before: Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Susan P. Graber,

and Richard C. Tallman,* Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

*

Judge Beezer was a member of the panel but passed away after oral

argument. Judge Tallman was drawn to replace him. He has read the

briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to the audio recording of oral

argument held on October 6, 2010.

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 2 of 22
PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 3

SUMMARY**

Nevada Insurance Law

The panel reversed and remanded to the district court for

entry of summary judgment in favor of Progressive Gulf

Insurance Company after the Nevada Supreme Court

answered a certified question concerning choice-of-law in an

insurance contract.

The panel certified a question to the Nevada Supreme

Court, and the Nevada Supreme Court rephrased the question.

The Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada public policy

did not “preclude giving effect to a household exclusion

clause in an automobile liability insurance policy delivered in

Mississippi to Mississippi residents and choosingMississippi

law as controlling, where Mississippi law permits household

exclusions but the effect of the exclusion is to deny Nevada

residents who were injured in Nevada recovery of the

minimum coverages specified in NRS 485.3091.”

The panel held that because Mississippi law applied,

summary judgment should have been granted in favor of

Progressive Gulf Insurance Company where the parties

stipulated that if Mississippi law applied, there was no

coverage under the Progressive Gulf Insurance Company

policy.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 3 of 22
4 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

COUNSEL

Dennis M. Prince, Prince & Keating LLP, Las Vegas,

Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brett A. Carter, Benson Bertoldo Baker & Carter, Chtd., Las

Vegas, Nevada, for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Progressive Gulf Insurance Company seeks review of the

district court’s order denying its motion for summary

judgment and of a later order entering judgment in favor of

the defendants. The sole issue before us is whether Nevada

or Mississippi law applies to the parties’ insurance contract. 

Because Mississippi law applies, we reverse the judgment of

the district court.

Randall and Toni Faehnrich lived in Mississippiwith their

two minor children. They contracted with Progressive Gulf

for automobile insurance. The policy was delivered in

Mississippi. It covered cars garaged in Mississippi, bearing

Mississippi license plates, driven by Mississippi-licensed

drivers. The policy specified that it was governed by

Mississippi law.

The Faehnrichs divorced and, in 2003, Toni Faehnrich

moved to Nevada. On June 8, 2003, Toni Faehnrich was

involved in a rollover vehicle accident while the two children

were passengers in her car. Randall Faehnrich presented a

bodily injury claim to Progressive Gulf on behalf of the

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 4 of 22
PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 5

children, which Progressive Gulf denied, citing the policy’s

family-member exclusion.

The parties stipulated that, “if Mississippi law is

applicable, there is no coverage under the terms and

conditions of the Progressive policy.” We certified the

following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:1

Does Nevada’s public policy preclude

giving effect to a choice-of-law provision in

an insurance contract that was negotiated,

executed, and delivered while the parties

resided outside of Nevada, when that effect

would deny any recovery under Nevada

Revised Statutes section 485.3091 to Nevada

residents who were injured in Nevada?

The Nevada Supreme Court chose to rephrase the

question, as is its prerogative. Rephrased, the question the

Nevada Supreme Court answered was:2

Does Nevada public policy preclude giving

effect to a household exclusion clause in an

automobile liability insurance policy

delivered in Mississippi to Mississippi

residents and choosing Mississippi law as

controlling, where Mississippi law permits

household exclusions but the effect of the

exclusion is to deny Nevada residents who

1 Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich, 627 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2010).

2 Progressive Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich, No. 57324, 2014 WL 1258808,

at *2 (Nev. March 27, 2014).

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 5 of 22
6 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

were injured in Nevada recovery of the

minimum coverages specified in NRS

485.3091?

The Nevada Supreme Court answered this question in the

negative, holding that “giving effect to the choice-of-law

provision in the parties’ automobile insurance policy does not

violate Nevada’s public policy.”3 Because Mississippi law

applies, summary judgment should have been granted in

favor of Progressive Gulf. The facts and reasoning are fully

set out in the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, Progressive

Gulf Ins. Co. v. Faehnrich, No. 57324, 2014 WL 1258808

(Nev. March 27, 2014), which we attach as an appendix.

REVERSED AND REMANDED for entry of summary

judgment in favor of Progressive Gulf Insurance Company.

 

3 Progressive Gulf Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1258808, at *6.

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 6 of 22
PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 7

APPENDIX

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 7 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 1 of 15

8 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 8 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 2 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 9

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 9 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 3 of 15

10 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 10 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 4 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 11

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 11 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 5 of 15

12 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 12 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 6 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 13

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 13 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 7 of 15

14 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 14 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 8 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 15

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 15 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 9 of 15

16 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 16 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 10 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 17

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 17 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 11 of 15

18 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 18 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 12 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 19

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 19 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 13 of 15

20 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 20 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 14 of 15

PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH 21

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 21 of 22
Case: 09-16487 04/01/2014 ID: 9040274 DktEntry: 25 Page: 15 of 15

22 PROGRESSIVE GULF INS. CO. V. FAEHNRICH

 Case: 09-16487, 05/07/2014, ID: 9085749, DktEntry: 29-1, Page 22 of 22