Russell

MEMORANDUM **

Pavao appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for Allstate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Jake Pavao’s injuries arose out of his occupancy of a vehicle, and thus appear to fall squarely within the terms of Exclusions 5 and 7 of the policy. Pavao nevertheless argues that his negligent supervision claim is not excluded because Russell’s negligent supervision was a separate, non-vehicle-related concurrent cause of Jake’s death, and relies on the *265 “concurrent causation doctrine.” Nevada’s Supreme Court has examined the concurrent causation doctrine but has not yet decided whether to adopt it. See Fire Ins. Exch. v. Cornell, 120 Nev. 303 , 90 P.3d 978 (2004); Hernandez v. First Fin. Ins. Co., 106 Nev. 900 , 802 P.2d 1278 (1990); Senteney v. Fire Ins. Exch., 101 Nev. 654 , 707 P.2d 1149 (1985).

We need not decide whether the Nevada Supreme Court would adopt the concurrent causation doctrine, because the doctrine would not apply here. To escape an exclusion, a concurrent cause must be truly “separate and distinct” from the excluded cause. Senteney, 707 P.2d at 1151 . If there is a “sufficient nexus” between an excluded…