NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
C LAR A ANN KNIGHT, ) No. 18-15154 individually

and a s he ir at la

w to ) Loga n Lora ine Knight, de c e a se d; ) D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00125-HDM -VPC R AC HEL W ILSON, he ir at la wto ) Loga n Lora ine Knight, de c e a se d; ) M EM OR A NDUM * THE ESTATE OF LOGAN ) LOR AINE KNIGHT, ) ) Pla intiffs-Appe l le e s, ) ) ) v. ) ) LM GENER

AL INSUR

ANC E ) C OM PANY, ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt. ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 16, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
M AY09 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public ation a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : D.W . NELSON, FER NANDEZ, a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. LM Ge ne ra l Insura

nc e C om pa ny (LM Ge ne ra l ) a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa

vor of C la

ra Ann Knight, R

a c he l W i lson, a

n d the Esta

te of Loga

n Lora ine Knight (he re a fte r c olle c tive l y “ Knight” ). W e a ffirm
. In an a c tion for de c la

ratory re lie f, Knight sought a de te rm ination tha t a
ve hic le drive n by Pa

ul S. W illia

m s wa s not e xc lude d from c o ve ra ge unde r the

“ re gula r use ” provision of a

n a utom obile insura

nc e polic y

issue d by LM Ge ne ra l in whic h Pa ul S. W illia

m s a nd B re nda

A. C orm ie r W illia

m s we re the nam e d insure ds. LM Ge ne ra l a sse rts tha

t the e xc lusion of a

ny ve hic le , othe r tha

n those liste d
a s “ c ove re d ve hic le s ,” whic h is “ furnishe d or ava ila ble for [the insure ds’ ] re gula r
use ” pre c lude s c ove ra ge in this insta nc e . W e disa gre e . Unde r the la w of the State of Ne va da 1 the m o st tha

t c an be sa id in fa

vor of LM Ge ne ra l’ s position is tha t the
re gula r use provision is a

m biguous. It c ould m e an tha t the polic y

e xc lude s a

ny use that is m e re ly “ c onsta nt, sy ste m atic . . . ste a dy , m e thodic a l,” 2 or it c ould m e an a
use that is “uninte rrupte d n o rm a l use for a ll purpose s; without lim ita t ion a s to use ;

1 This is a dive rsity

c a se . Se e 28 U.S.C
. § 1332(a ). W e , the re fore , a pply the la w of the Stat e of Ne va da
. Se e Erie R.R. C o . v . Tompk

ins , 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S. C t. 817, 822, 82 L. Ed. 1188 (1938).

2 Hartford Ins. Grp. v

. W i nk le r , 508 P.2d 8, 13 (Ne v . 1973) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d) (c iting a dic tiona ry ). 2and c ustom ary use a s oppose d to oc c a siona l use or spe c ia l use .” 3 Of c ourse , tha t doe s not he lp LM Ge ne ra l’ s position be c a use unde r Ne va da

la w a re a sona ble insure d 4 c ould e xpe c t c ove ra ge of a n a utom obile whose use is se ve re ly lim ite d to the n e e ds of a

n e m ploy e r and for no othe r purpose . C e rta inly it c annot be sa id tha

t LM Ge n e ra l’ s “ inte rpre tation e xc l uding c ove ra ge is the only re a sona ble inte rpre tation of thee xc lusiona ry provision.” C

e ntury Sur. C o ., 329 P.3d a

t 616. LM Ge n e ra l doe s m ake a

num b e r of othe r a

rgum e nts, a ll of whic h

se e k to a void the fa c t tha

t the N e va da

Supre m e C o urt ha s spoke n, but it is to tha t spe ak ing tha

t
we m ust de fe r. Se e Ange l v . Bullington , 330 U.S. 183, 191, 67 S. Ct. 657, 662, 91 L. Ed. 832 (1947); se e also Erie , 304 U.S. a t 78, 58 S. C t. at 822. As a n ultim ate fa llba c k position, LM

Ge ne ra l a sks tha

t we c e rtify

the re gula

r use que s tion to the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt so tha

t it c an re visit its previous de c ision. W e de c line to do so. Se e C

h u rc hill v . F/V Fjord (In re Mc Linn) , 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th C ir. 1984); s e e also Ne v . R
. App. P. 5(a ). AFFIR M ED.

3 Id. (inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). W e note tha t it m ay not be am biguous a t a ll be c a use the latte r de finition c an be se e n a s a de finition tha t is m ore pre c ise tha

n the ge ne ra l dic tiona

ry de finition.
4 Se e , e .g. , C e ntury Sur. C o. v . C asino W
. , Inc
. , 329 P.3d 614, 616 (Nev. 2014); W ink le r , 508 P.2d a

t 11. 3