Legal Opinion
Naaman Shepard v. Foremost Insurance Company Inc
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided February 10, 2010No. 09-35291UnpublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM *
Naaman Shepard (Shepard) appeals the district court’s judgment following a bench trial that the marine insurance policy issued by Foremost Insurance Company (Foremost) did not cover his loss.
1. The Washington proximate cause rule, see Wright v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 124 Wash.App. 268, 273-74, 109 P.3d 1 (Wash.Ct.App.2004), and the federal proximate cause rule, see Commodities Reserve Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 879 F.2d 640, 643 (9th Cir.1989), are substantially similar. Therefore, any error in applying the Washington law was harmless. See Coutee v. Barington Capital…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Coutee v. Barington Capital Group, L.P.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Wright v. Safeco Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2004
- Conrad v. Ace Property & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Commodities Reserve Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Saleemi v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2013