Vegas Lawyer
Helping People Who
Were Hurt In Nevada

Dempsey, Roberts
& Smith, Ltd.

Las Vegas Lawyers
Nevada Legal Help

Car Accidents
Death Claims
Slip & Fall
Medical Injury
Product Defect
Other Claims
Contact Us

Las Vegas Lawyers

Vegas Injury Law

Welcome to Vegas Lawyer. This site is for people who were hurt in Nevada. Contact us for a free consultation. You may want to read the Las Vegas Personal Injury Law introduction on our home page. Also, you can get an overview of other claims like Wrongful Death, Auto Accidents, Slip & Fall, and Products Liability before you explore the Article below.

Click Above Or Below To Go To Vegas Lawyer:

Car Rental Shifting Clause Validity




                                                     No. 96-15506
                                                     D.C. No.
                                                     CV 95-0049 HG

INSURANCE AND GUARANTY                                No. 96-15655
                                                     D.C. No.
                                                     CV 95-0676 DAE
                                                     ORDER RE
ALAMO RENT-A-CAR, INC.;                               CERTIFIED

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen Gillmor and David A. Ezra,
District Judges, Presiding

Argued and Submitted
May 9, 1997*--Honolulu, Hawaii
Submission Withdrawn May 16, 1997
Resubmitted January 21, 1998

*No. 96-15506 was submitted without oral argument, the panel having
unanimously found the case suitable for decision without oral argument.
Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Ninth Cir. R. 34-4.


Filed February 24, 1998

Before: Cynthia Holcomb Hall, Stephen S. Trott** and
A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.



The primary issue involved in these diversity cases 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 consid-


No. 96-15506

Keith R. Douglas rented a car 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 agree-
ment, which provides:

      Unless contrary to state law or otherwise provided
      by this agreement, if there is no other valid and col-
      lectible insurance, whether primary, excess or con-
      tingent, available to the renter (or any authorized
      driver while operating the car) sufficient to meet
**The panel assigned to these cases, as originally constituted, included
Judge Norris. However, Judge Norris resigned before the cases were
resubmitted for decision and Judge Trott has been drawn in his place.
Judge Trott has been furnished with copies of all of the briefs and the
records, as well as an audiotape of the oral argument in No. 96-15655.


      minimum financial responsibility law requirements,
      then . . . Alamo shall provide protection against lia-
      bility for bodily injury, death or property damage to
      others up to the minimum financial responsibility
      limits required by applicable law . . . .

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.
S 431:10C-104. The district court determined that Douglas
had other insurance available and granted summary judgment
in favor of Alamo.

No. 96-15655

Michael E. Kaneshiro was also involved in an accident
while driving an automobile he had rented from Alamo. The
driver of the other car sued him for personal injury in Hawaii
state court. Kaneshiro tendered the defense of the action to
Alamo and Alamo's insurer, Continental. They refused to
defend. Kaneshiro then filed this action. Here, too, Alamo
relies on a similar Shifting Clause:

      If there is no other valid and collectible insurance,
      whether primary, excess, or contingent, available to
      the renter . . . then Alamo's vehicle liability policy
      shall pay damages not to exceed minimum limits
      required by applicable state law. This amends the
      "liability insurance" paragraph on the reverse side;
      all other terms not in conflict with the above remain
      in effect.1
1 The "liability insurance" paragraph on the reverse side of the rental
agreement stated:


Kaneshiro, likewise, contends, inter alia, that this Shifting
Clause violates Hawaii's No-Fault Law. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of Alamo and Continen-
tal. Kaneshiro v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 554
(D. Haw. 1995), 909 F. Supp. 752 (D. Haw. 1996).


Hawaii's No-Fault Law sets a "baseline, minimum level of
automobile liability insurance protection" and attempts to
assure that "every car on the road [has] the basic minimal no-
fault coverage." Pacific Int'l Servs. Corp v. Hurip, 873 P.2d
88, 96 (Haw. 1994). To this end, the statute provides:

      Every owner of a motor vehicle . . . shall obtain a
      no-fault policy upon such vehicle which provides the
      coverage required by this article and shall maintain
      the no-fault policy at all times . . . .

Haw. Rev. Stat. S 431:10C-104(b). That insurance must cover
not only the owner, but also "any operator using the motor
vehicle with the express or implied permission of the named
insured." Haw. Rev. Stat. S 431:10C-301(a)(2). The unre-
solved issue is whether Alamo's Shifting Clause violates
these provisions of the No-Fault Law. The Hawaii Supreme
Court has not spoken on the issue. Nor is there unanimity
among other jurisdictions which have addressed the issue.
Compare Hertz Corp. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 1998 WL
      You [Alamo] provide me [the renter] with liability insurance or
      protection that will cover bodily injury, death, or property dam-
      age only up to the minimum financial responsibility required by
      state law. I agree that any amounts over this minimum shall be
      covered by me or my liability policy and I will indemnify you for
      any losses that exceed the minimum limits. I can see a copy of
      your policy or self-insurance certificate at your rental office. ALL



30419 (Minn. 1998) (burden shifting not legal); State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 549 N.W.2d
345 (Mich. 1996) (same); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Clarendon Nat'l Ins. Co., 604 A.2d 384 (Del. 1992) (burden
shifting inconsistent with policy underlying no-fault statute);
with Kattoura v. Patel, 619 A.2d 1031 (N.J. 1993) (burden
shifting legal); Irvin v. Rhodes, 929 S.W.2d 829 (Mo.App.
1996) (same).

"We do not think it is appropriate to substitute our judg-
ment on the interpretation of a Hawaii statute for the judg-
ment of the Hawaii Supreme Court." Smith v. Cutter
Biological, Inc., 911 F.2d 374, 375 (9th Cir. 1990). Accord-
ingly, we certify the following question to the Hawaii
Supreme Court, pursuant to its discretionary authority under
Hawaii Rule of Appellate Procedure 13:

      Can the owner of a motor vehicle, who is in the
      business of renting its motor vehicles to others, ful-
      fill its minumum liability coverage obligation under
      the No-Fault Law by providing in its rental agree-
      ments that any liability insurance available to the
      renter is primary and that the owner's own liability
      insurance is secondary?

We note that "[o]ur phrasing of the question[ ] should not
restrict the court's consideration of the problems and issues
involved. `The court may reformulate the relevant state law
questions as it perceives them to be, in light of the contentions
of the parties.' " Id. at 376 (quoting Toner v. Lederle Lab.,
779 F.2d 1429, 1433 (9th Cir. 1986)). If the Hawaii Supreme
Court declines to accept certification, for any reason, we will,
of course, "resolve the issues according to our understanding
of Hawaii law." Id.

The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Order to the Clerk of the Hawaii Supreme Court. Haw. R.
App. P. 13. The parties shall notify the Clerk of this court


within one week after the Hawaii Supreme Court accepts or
rejects certification and within one week after that court
issues its opinion. The panel retains jurisdiction over any fur-
ther proceedings in this court.


*** Any law, statute, regulation or other precedent is subject to change at any time ***

Index | Home

Contact David Matheny, Esq. for a free consultation.

(702) 388-1229

Search for more information on Vegas Law and Las Vegas Lawyers:


Dempsey, Roberts
& Smith, Ltd.

Nevada Lawyer
Nevada Accident
& Injury Law

Vegas Lawyer
Nevada Accident
& Injury Law

Index | Home

Wrongful Death | Car Accident | Slip & Fall | Malpractice | Product Defect | Other Claims

520 South Fourth Street, Suite 360
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101

Las Vegas Lawyer - Las Vegas Attorney - Las Vegas Personal Injury Lawyer

A Lawyer In Las Vegas Can Assist You If You Need Any Of The Following:

Las Vegas Lawyers
Las Vegas Personal Injury Lawyers
Las Vegas Injury Lawyer
Las Vegas Accident Lawyer
Las Vegas Car Accident Lawyer
Las Vegas Auto Accident Lawyer
Las Vegas Wrongful Death Lawyer
Las Vegas Fatal Accident Lawyer
Las Vegas Lawyer
Las Vegas Law Firm
Personal Injury Attorney
Injury Attorney
Accident Attorney
Car Accident Attorney
Auto Accident Attorney
Wrongful Death Attorney
Fatal Accident Attorney
Lawyer Help
Lawyers In Las Vegas
Personal Injury Lawyer In Las Vegas
Injury Lawyer In Las Vegas
Accident Lawyer In Las Vegas
Car Accident Lawyer In Las Vegas
Auto Accident Lawyer In Las Vegas
Wrongful Death Lawyer In Las Vegas
Fatal Accident Lawyer In Las Vegas
Lawyer In Las Vegas
Legal Help
Death Claim Lawyer
Car Wreck Lawyer
Vehicle Accident Lawyer
Dangerous Product Lawyer
Defective Product Lawyer
Product Liability Lawyer
Premises Liability Lawyer
Slip & Fall Lawyer
Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Attorney Help
Death Claim Attorney
Car Wreck Attorney
Vehicle Accident Attorney
Dangerous Product Attorney
Defective Product Attorney
Product Liability Attorney
Premises Liability Attorney
Slip & Fall Attorney
Medical Malpractice Attorney
Death Claim Attorney In Las Vegas
Car Wreck Attorney In Las Vegas
Vehicle Accident Attorney In Las Vegas
Dangerous Product Attorney In Las Vegas
Defective Product Attorney In Las Vegas
Product Liability Attorney In Las Vegas
Premises Liability Attorney In Las Vegas
Slip & Fall Attorney In Las Vegas
Medical Malpractice Attorney In Las Vegas

A Las Vegas Lawyer can help you in any area in Nevada, including:

  • Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Henderson, Nevada
  • Battle Mountain, Nevada
  • Carson City, Nevada
  • Dayton, Nevada
  • Elko, Nevada
  • Ely, Nevada
  • Eureka, Nevada
  • Fallon, Nevada
  • Fernley, Nevada
  • Goldfield, Nevada
  • Hawthorne, Nevada
  • Paradise Township, Nevada
  • Laughlin, Nevada
  • Lovelock, Nevada
  • Minden, Nevada
  • Pahrump, Nevada
  • Pioche, Nevada
  • Reno, Nevada
  • Summerlin, Nevada
  • Tonopah, Nevada
  • Virginia, Nevada
  • Wendover, Nevada
  • Winnemucca, Nevada
  • Yerington, Nevada
  • Zephyr Cove, Nevada
  • Spring Valley, Nevada
  • Mesquite, Nevada

  • Neither the State Bar of Nevada nor any agency of the State Bar has certified any lawyer identified here as a specialist or as an expert.  Anyone considering a lawyer should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability. This site is intended for Nevada residents and those with legal issues arising under the jurisdiction of the State of Nevada.  This site does not give legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship.  Laws are different in other states and localities, consult a local attorney.

    The information in this web site is provided for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute legal advice. The use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Further communication with an attorney through the web site and e-mail may not be considered as confidential or privileged. Please contact our attorneys if you wish to discuss the contents of this web site. Any laws, rules or statutes giving any information, restrictions or deadlines, are always subject to change at any time - Contact a local attorney to obtain the current status of such information.

    In the series of Articles on this site, many government PSAs and other information are excerpted. All such materials are believed to be in the public domain. If any work is protected, contact the webmaster at any of the e-mail links and the material will be taken off the site immediately.

    If you experience unusual problems with this site or discover dead links, please email the webmaster. Thank you.

    Copyright: David Matheny, 2003-2005.