JAMES NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on behalf of Cheyanne Nalder v. United Automobile Insurance Company

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on
behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and GARY
LEWIS, individually,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-15010
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01348-ECR-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
JAMES NALDER, Guardian Ad Litem on
behalf of Cheyanne Nalder and GARY
LEWIS, individually,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-15462
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01348-ECR-
GWF
FILED
DEC 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Appeal 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. § 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

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
stated 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.

-- 3 of 3 --