Allstate Insurance v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Good Law
137 F.3d 634·98 Daily Journal DAR 1819·1998 WL 72847·1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 2873·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1315
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 1998Nos. 96-15506, 96-15655California727 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

ORDER

The primary issue involved in these diversity eases is the validity of Alamo Rent-A-Car’s “Shifting Clause,” which shifts primary responsibility for liability insurance coverage from itself, and its insurer, to the automobile renter, and his or her insurer. Because this is an unresolved question of state law, we certify it to the Hawaii Supreme Court for its consideration.

BACKGROUND

No. 96-15506

Keith R. Douglas rented a ear from Alamo and was involved in an accident in which several of his passengers and the driver of the other car were allegedly injured. They made claims against Douglas. Alamo denied liability coverage, relying on the Shifting Clause contained in its rental agreement, which provides:

*636 Alamo contends that the Shifting Clause shifts the primary duty to defend and to indemnify Douglas for any accident-related injuries from Alamo to Allstate, Douglas’ personal insurance carrier. Allstate contends that the Shifting Clause is invalid under Hawaii’s No-Fault Law which, according to Allstate, requires the owner of a motor vehicle to provide the coverage required by the Law. See Haw.Rev.Stat. § 431:10C-104. The district court determined that Douglas had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.