22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4c3,MEMORANDUM Scott Cronk, Chris Crumley, and Employers Insurance of Nevada appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of General Insurance Company of America (GICOA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Neither Cronk nor Crumley was entitled to coverage under the plain language of Carson Nugget’s uninsured motorist endorsement because they were not “ ‘occupying1 a covered ‘auto’ or a temporary substitute for a covered ‘auto’ ” when injured. Because neither Cronk nor Crum-ley was a “person insured” under Carson Nugget’s commercial automobile policy, their exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage does not violate Nevada’s public policy. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hinkel, 87 Nev. 478, 484 , 488 P.2d 1151 (1971). Nor is section 616C.215(3)(c) of the Nevada Revised Statutes to the contrary, as Cronk and Crumley were not injured “under circumstances entitling [them] ... to receive proceeds under [their] employer’s policy of uninsured or underinsured vehicle coverage.” Nev.Rev. Stat. § 616C.215(3). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4f0,

MEMORANDUM

Scott Cronk, Chris Crumley, and Employers Insurance of Nevada appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of General Insurance Company of America (GICOA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .

Neither Cronk nor Crumley was entitled to coverage under the plain language of Carson Nugget’s uninsured motorist endorsement because they were not “ ‘occupying1 a covered ‘auto’ or a temporary substitute for a covered ‘auto’ ” when injured. Because neither Cronk nor Crum-ley was a “person insured” under Carson Nugget’s commercial automobile policy, their exclusion from uninsured motorist coverage does not violate Nevada’s public policy. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hinkel, 87 Nev. 478, 484 , 488 P.2d 1151 (1971). Nor is section 616C.215(3)(c) of the Nevada Revised Statutes to the contrary, as Cronk and Crumley were not injured “under circumstances entitling [them] ... to receive proceeds under [their] employer’s policy of uninsured or underinsured vehicle coverage.” Nev.Rev. Stat. § 616C.215(3).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.