N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DAVID GAY, a single m an,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. TR UM B ULL INSUR

A NC E C OM PANY, a C onne c tic ut c orporation,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-16642 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02269-DGC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Dav id G. C am

pbe ll, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 15, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , C HR ISTEN, a nd FRIEDLAND, C irc u it Judge s. Pla intiff Da

vid Ga y a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of De fe nda

nt Trum bull Insura

nc e C om p any . Trum

bull de nie d Gay ’ s insura

nc e c la im a fte r c onc luding tha

t his m otorc y c le wa s not a n insure d 

# FIL ED SEP 26 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).ve hic le unde r the subje c t polic y . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291,

and we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt. 1 1. The unc o nve nt iona l de finition of “m otor ve hic le ” in the M i nne sota No-Fa u lt Autom obile Insura

nc e Ac t , whic h e xc l ude s m otorc y c l e s, doe s not a pply to the Uninsure d/Unde rinsure d M otorist C ove ra ge se c tion of Trum bull’ s insura

nc e polic y . 2 Nothing in the

Ac t sugge sts theM inne sota le gisla ture inte nde d its de finition to a

pply to a l l a utom obile insura

nc e polic ie s . Se e Himle

v . Am. Family Mut. Ins. C

o. , 445 N.W .2d 587, 590 (M i nn. C t. App. 1989). And the M inne sota Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t the de finition did not a

pply to a sim ila r polic y . Roe ring v
. Grinne ll Mut. Re insuranc e C o. , 444 N.W .2d 829, 833 (M inn. 1989). Although the Roe ring c ourt he ld tha

t the p o lic y

e xc lusion in tha

t c a s e wa s une nforc e a

b le be c a use it pe rm itte d le ss c ove ra ge tha n the Ac t re quire d at the tim e , the M inne sota le gisla ture am e nde d the Ac t in 1991 such tha t “ an owne r of a m otorc y c l e who is injure d while oc c upy i ng tha

t m otorc y c le m ay

only look to uninsure d or unde rinsure d be ne fits purc ha s e d for tha t m otorc y c le .” Se e J

ohnson v . W

. N at’l Mut. Ins. C

o. , 540 N.W .2d 78, 81 (M inn. C t. App. 1995). The post- Roe ring

1 The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t M i nne sota

la w gove rns the substa

ntive que stions ra ise d he re .

2 The de finition of “m otor ve hic le ” provide d in thePe rsona l Injury Prote c tion C ove ra ge Endorse m e nt is not re l e va nt he re . 2am e ndm e nts to theNo-Fa ult Ac t do not de m o nstra

te that the M inne sota

le gisla ture inte nde d insura

nc e polic ie s to re quire unde rinsure d m otorist c ove ra ge for
m otorc y c le s. Additionally , Trum bull’ s polic y sugge sts only an inte nt to m e e t
m inim um c ove ra ge re quire m e nts, ra the r tha n a n inte nt to a dopt a ll de finitions from the A c t. 3 2. Whe re the pa

rtie s a dva nc e diffe re nt inte rpre tations of policy la ngua ge , a re v ie wing c ourt m

ust “ de c ide whe the r both of the se inte rpre tations a re
re a s ona ble .” C arlson v . Allstate

Ins. C o . , 749 N.W .2d 41, 45 (M inn. 2008). Trum b ull a rgue s tha t the te rm “ m otor ve hic le ” a s use d in Exc l usion A.1 to the Uninsure d/Unde rinsure d M o torists C ove ra ge se c tion inc l ude s m otorc y c le s. This is
c onsiste nt with thete rm ’ s usua l a n d a c c e pte d m e aning. Ga y doe s not a

rgue tha t

“ m otor ve hic le ,” a s ge ne ra lly unde rstood, re a sona bly e xc lude s m otorc y c le s, but
rathe r that c onstruing the

te rm in a c c orda

nc e with thesta

tutory de finition is a

lso
re a s ona ble . B ut a s a lre a d

y e xpla ine d, we find no support for the argum e nt tha

t the le gisla ture inte n de d for the Ac t ’ s de finition to a pply to the pa

rtie s’ c ontra c t . The pa rtie s re que st a

ttorne y ’ s fe e s in the ir brie fs. Suc h re que sts m ust be
m a de in a c c orda

nc e with Ninth C irc uit R

ule 39-1.6.

3 C ontra

ry to Pla intiffs’ argum e nts, Himle is ina pplic a ble he re be c a

use the re is no “ e xpre ss sta

t e m e nt of . . . intent

to m e e t the re q

u ire m e nts of the sta tute s.” S e e 445 N.W .2d a

t 590. 3AFFIRM E D.

4