
    Yolanda E. QUIHUIS; Robert Quihuis, a married couple, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-18067.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Jan. 16, 2014.
    Filed Dec. 24, 2014.
    Jeffrey Allan Imig, Philip J. Hall, Es-quire, Haralson Miller Pitt Feldman & McAnally, PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    David Martin Bell, David Bell & Associates PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: TALLMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and GORDON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The full facts and procedural history of this case can be found in our previous order. See Quihuis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 911 (9th Cir.2014). This appeal stems from an insurance-coverage dispute. In our previous order, we agreed with the district court that the undisputed facts establish that the Coxes were not the owners of the Jeep, and therefore were not covered under State Farm’s policy, at the time of the accident. Quihuis, 748 F.3d at 914. But plaintiffs argued State Farm was precluded from litigating coverage under the circumstances of this case. These circumstances include:

(1) [State Farm’s] refusal to defend its insured against a third-party tort claim after [it] determined its policy did not cover the accident; a stipulated default judgment against the insured under a Damron agreement; and (3) a question of ownership, which is both an element of liability for the underlying negligent entrustment tort claim against the insured and a requirement of coverage under the insurance policy.

Quihuis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 235 Ariz. 536, 334 P.3d 719, 723 (2014). Existing Arizona cases were unclear as to whether State Farm is precluded from litigating coverage under these circumstances, so we certified a question to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of our question, and answered by holding that State Farm is not precluded from litigating its coverage dispute. Quihuis, 334 P.3d at 730. Because the Arizona Supreme Court held State Farm may litigate coverage, and because we have determined no coverage existed at the time of the plaintiffs’ injuries, we affirm the District Court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of State Farm.

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