Opinion
No. 3:04-cv-0639-HDM-RAM.
November 10, 2005
ORDER
Pursuant to Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5, the court certifies the following question to the Nevada Supreme Court:
I. Question of Law
Whether, under Nevada law, an additional insured endorsement provides coverage for an injury caused by the sole independent negligence of the additional insured?
II. Statement of Proposed Facts
On October 1, 2001, American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company ("American Hardware") issued an insurance policy to Clark Lift West, Inc. ("Clark Lift") of Sacramento, California. The insurance policy was in full force and effect on October 12, 2001. As part of the policy, American Hardware issued an Additional Insured Endorsement which named Southern Wine Spirits of America, Inc. as an additional insured.
On January 16, 2004, Charles K. Pierce filed a personal injury lawsuit in state court, naming Southern Wine Spirits of America, Inc. ("Southern Wine"), as one of the defendants. At the time of his injury, Mr. Pierce was acting within the course and scope of his employment. He was performing repair work on a conveyor motor belt system on the premises of Southern Wine.
Southern Wine and its liability carrier, Federal Insurance Company, tendered the defense to American Hardware, and American Hardware denied coverage. The parties have a dispute concerning whether Southern Wine is covered under the American Hardware Insurance policy for Mr. Pierce's accident.
III. Names of Plaintiffs and Defendant
Plaintiffs: Federal Insurance Company; Southern Wine Spirits of America Inc.
Defendant: American Hardware Mutual Insurance Company
IV. Names and Addresses of Counsel
Plaintiffs: Thierry V. Barkley, Esq. Thorndal, Armstrong, Delk, Balkenbush, Eisinger 6590 S. McCarron Blvd, Ste. B Reno, Nevada 89509
Defendant: Robert L. Eisenberg, Esq. Lemons, Grundy Eisenberg 6005 Plumas Street, Suite 300 Reno, Nevada 89509V. Other Relevant Matters
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada requests that the Nevada Supreme Court answer this certified question in accordance with Nevada Rule of Appellate Procedure 5. The question appears to be determinative of the case pending before this court and there appears to be no definitive controlling precedent in the published opinions of the Nevada Supreme Court.
It is so ordered.