Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the appeal by Donna Howland against the district court's summary judgment in favor of Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, concerning the denial of coverage under a life insurance policy. The insured, Gary Howland, died in a vehicle accident with a blood alcohol level of .22%, invoking the policy's intoxication exclusion, which precludes coverage for injuries sustained while intoxicated at levels of .10% or higher. The court evaluated the evidence, emphasizing that speculation alone cannot contest a motion for summary judgment. Howland's arguments, which suggested possible errors in blood sample analysis, were deemed speculative and insufficient to overturn the evidence of intoxication. Furthermore, Howland's claim of insurance bad faith was dismissed, as Nevada law requires proof that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying coverage, a criterion unmet due to the clear intoxication exclusion in the contract. The appellate court upheld the district court's ruling, affirming the summary judgment for Stonebridge and rejecting the need to address additional issues on appeal, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3, thereby not publishing the decision as precedent.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bad Faith Insurance Claim under Nevada Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The insurer had a reasonable basis for denying coverage due to the applicable intoxication exclusion, negating a claim of bad faith.
Reasoning: Under Nevada law, to establish bad faith, a plaintiff must show the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for disputing coverage and knew or recklessly disregarded this fact.
Insurance Policy Intoxication Exclusionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The exclusion is applicable as the insured's blood alcohol level exceeded the policy's defined limit at .22%, supporting the insurer's denial of coverage.
Reasoning: The case involves claims related to Gary Howland’s life insurance policy, which excluded coverage for injuries incurred while intoxicated, defined as having a blood alcohol level of .10% or higher.
Non-precedential Decisions in the Ninth Circuitsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision to affirm without publication as precedent aligns with 9th Cir. R. 36-3, indicating the case's limited applicability.
Reasoning: The court deems further issues raised on appeal unnecessary to address, affirming the decision without publication as precedent, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court must view evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, but speculation is insufficient to oppose such a motion.
Reasoning: In assessing the summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party; however, mere speculation is insufficient to overcome such motions.