Steven A. Holper; Kara Holper v. Ace American Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEVEN A. HOLPER; KARA HOLPER,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-16438
D.C. No. 2:13-cv-00869-APG-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 12, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: TROTT, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The Holpers appeal the district court’s summary judgment granted to Ace
American Insurance Company in their attempt by way of a liability claim to
FILED
MAY 17 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

recover for injuries suffered by Steven Holper in a boating accident caused by his
wife, Kara. We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal, and we affirm.
The district court concluded that the disputed liability claim is precluded by
an unambiguous policy exclusion which denies coverage if injury to the named
insured (Steven) is caused by a person to whom Steven granted express permission
to operate the boat. This exclusion is commonly known as the “household
exclusion.”
The Holpers do not challenge the court’s holding that the policy exclusion is
not ambiguous. Instead, they rely on an unpersuasive argument not advanced in
the district court, i.e., that “the doctrine of reasonable expectations should
supercede the unclear contract language and provide coverage for Dr. Holper’s
injuries.” By not raising this issue in the district court, the Holpers forfeited it.
O’Guinn v. Lovelock Correctional Center, 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th Cir.
2007). In any event, the “reasonable expectations” doctrine does not apply to
unambiguous policy provisions. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Young, 832 P.2d 376,
379 n.3 (Nev. 1992) (the “reasonable expectations” doctrine only applies if a
policy is ambiguous).
In the alternative, the Holpers contend that the “‘household exclusion’ in the
policy . . . is invalid on public policy grounds.” They base this argument on Nev.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

Rev. Stat. § 687B.147, which requires such an exclusion in cases involving
passenger cars to include the precise names of persons excluded for the exclusion
to be valid. This argument is defective on its face. NRS 687B.147 applies to
passenger cars, not to watercraft.
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to certify
this issue for decision to the Nevada Supreme Court. We also do not believe that
certification is necessary in this uncomplicated straightforward case.
AFFIRMED.
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --