Aaa Nevada Insurance Company v. Vinh Chau

FILED
DEC 22 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AAA NEVADA INSURANCE CO., No. 10-16793
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00827-RJJ-LRL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
VIHN CHAU and LANG CHAU,
Defendants,
and
BENJAMIN D. BUENAVENTURA,
JR., et al.,
Intervenors - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 15, 2011
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, BEA, Circuit Judge, and GETTLEMAN,
District Judge.**
Because the Buenaventuras are not parties to the insurance contract between
AAA and Chau, and do not have a judgment against Chau, they have no standing
to sue AAA for a declaration of coverage. Knittle v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 908
P.2d 724, 726 (Nev. 1996). A tort claimant’s rights against the tortfeasor’s insurer
do not mature until the tort claimant recovers a judgment. Roberts v. Farmers Ins.
Co. 533 P.2d 158, 159 (Nev. 1975). Nevada law, which applies to this diversity
action, does not recognize a right of action on the part of a third-party claimant
against an insurance company for bad-faith refusal to settle. Tweet v. Webster,
610 F. Supp. 104, 105 (D. Nev. 1985); see Hunt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
655 F. Supp. 284, 286-88 (D. Nev. 1987).
Parties need not have standing to intervene in this circuit, see State of
California Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Thompson, 321 F.3d 835, 846 n.9 (9th Cir.
2003), but must have standing to appeal, see Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 68
(1986). Because the Buenaventuras do not have standing to sue AAA, they do not
have standing to appeal. The only exception is the Buenaventuras’ standing to
**
The Honorable Robert W. Gettleman, Senior United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
2
appeal the district court’s limitation on their intervention, which we affirm for the
same reasons as given by the district court. On all other matters, this appeal is
dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
3