FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOLANDA E. QUIHUIS; ROBERT No. 11-18067
QUIHUIS, a married couple,
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00376-RCC
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted January 16, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for
the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
The full facts and procedural history of this case can be found in our
previous order. See Quihuis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 911 (9th
Cir. 2014). This appeal stems from an insurance-coverage dispute. In our previous
order, we agreed with the district court that the undisputed facts establish that the
Coxes were not the owners of the Jeep, and therefore were not covered under State
Farm’s policy, at the time of the accident. Quihuis, 748 F.3d at 914. But plaintiffs
argued State Farm was precluded from litigating coverage under the circumstances
of this case. These circumstances include:
(1) [State Farm’s] refusal to defend its insured against a third-party
tort claim after [it] determined its policy did not cover the accident;
(2) a stipulated default judgment against the insured under a Damron
agreement; and (3) a question of ownership, which is both an element
of liability for the underlying negligent entrustment tort claim against
the insured and a requirement of coverage under the insurance policy.
Quihuis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 P.3d 719, 723 (Ariz. 2014).
Existing Arizona cases were unclear as to whether State Farm is precluded from
litigating coverage under these circumstances, so we certified a question to the
Arizona Supreme Court.
The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of our question, and answered
by holding that State Farm is not precluded from litigating its coverage dispute.
Quihuis, 334 P.3d at 730. Because the Arizona Supreme Court held State Farm
2
may litigate coverage, and because we have determined no coverage existed at the
time of the plaintiffs’ injuries, we affirm the District Court’s decision granting
summary judgment in favor of State Farm.
AFFIRMED.
3