JAMES NALDER V. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO, No. 11-15010 (9th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and GARY LEWIS, individually, No. 11-15010 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01348-ECRGWF Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. JAMES NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and GARY LEWIS, individually, No. 11-15462 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01348-ECRGWF Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellant. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. -2Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Edward C. Reed, Senior District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 7, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. 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. ยง 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 -3stated 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.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
