Andres Mendoza v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Inc., the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut

15 F.3d 1087 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Andres MENDOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, INC., the Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-16566. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Jan. 14, 1994. Decided Jan. 24, 1994. Before: GOODWIN, WIGGINS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Andres Mendoza appeals the district court's partial grant of summary judgment in favor of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Inc. ("Aetna"). We affirm. 3 The following facts were found by the district court and are not in dispute. On July 31, 1988, Andres Mendoza's housemate, Cipriano Equia, asked him to run an errand to retrieve boxes stored at various sites and which were needed for packing and cleaning. Equia gave Mendoza permission to use his van, which was insured by Aetna, in completing this errand. 4 Having retrieved boxes from various locations, Mendoza made a…