Legal Opinion

Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Russell

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 8, 2009No. 08-15669Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Pavao appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for Allstate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Jake Pavao’s injuries arose out of his occupancy of a vehicle, and thus appear to fall squarely within the terms of Exclusions 5 and 7 of the policy. Pavao nevertheless argues that his negligent supervision claim is not excluded because Russell’s negligent supervision was a separate, non-vehicle-related concurrent cause of Jake’s death, and relies on the *265“concurrent causation doctrine.” Nevada’s Supreme Court has examined the concurrent causation…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. PartridgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Salem Group v. OliverSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
  3. SENTENEY BY SENTENEY v. Fire Ins. ExchangeNevada Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  5. Hernandez v. First Financial InsuranceNevada Supreme Court · 1990

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API