Yair Jackoby v. Geico General Ins Co
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1DissentGould, Circuit Judge
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of GEICO and denial of summary judgment for Jackoby. Nevada interprets ambiguities in an insurance contract against the drafter, here the insurer. Century Sur. Co. v. Casino W, Inc.,—Nev.-, 329 P.3d 614, 616 (2014): But I would affirm and conclude that Geico properly denied stacking Jackoby’s UIM coverages. All factors relevant under Nevada law when construing an ambiguous insurance policy, including an aim to effectuate the “insured’s reasonable expectations,” in my view…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee Investment LLCCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- National Union Fire Insurance v. Caesars Palace Hotel & CasinoNevada Supreme Court · 1990
- Bove v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNevada Supreme Court · 1990
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. CoatneyNevada Supreme Court · 2002