Campbell Global, LLC v. American States Insurance Co. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    NOV 13 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    CAMPBELL GLOBAL, LLC, a Delaware                 No.   18-35337
    limited liability company; BASCOM
    SOUTHERN, LLC, a Delaware limited                D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02091-MO
    liability company,
    Plaintiff-Appellants,              MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE CO.,
    an Indiana corporation; AMERICAN
    ECONOMY INSURANCE COMPANY,
    an Indiana corporation; GENERAL
    INSURANCE COMPANY OF
    AMERICA, a New Hampshire
    corporation; and FIRST NATIONAL
    INSURANCE COMPANY OF
    AMERICA, a New Hampshire
    corporation,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted October 23, 2019
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: FARRIS, BEA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Campbell and Bascom appeal from a decision of the District Court granting
    partial summary judgment for their insurers in a breach of insurance contract
    action. At the conclusion of Campbell and Bascom’s underlying 45-year forestry
    operations lease with Alabama landowners, the landowners filed an arbitration
    action for breach of contract and negligence, among other claims. The arbitrators
    awarded the landowners $3,506,214 in damages. Campbell and Bascom’s insurers
    refused to indemnify them for that award.
    Under Oregon law, when an insured seeks indemnification for damages it
    owes, “what the insured had become obligated to pay as damages and whether the
    insurer ultimately was liable under its policy present[] questions of law for the
    court to determine by reference to (a) the [insurance] contract and (b) the judgment
    and record in the underlying proceeding.” Fountaincourt Homeowners’ Ass’n v.
    Fountaincourt Dev., LLC, 
    380 P.3d 916
    , 926 (Or. 2016). The insurance policies
    defined “occurrence” as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to
    substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Oregon Supreme Court
    has held that “‘accident’ has a tortious connotation. Damage solely caused by
    2
    failure to perform a contract is not recoverable in tort.” Kisle v. St. Paul Fire &
    Marine Ins. Co., 
    495 P.2d 1198
    , 1200 (Or. 1972).
    The arbitration award contained the finding that Campbell and Bascom acted
    deliberately and in bad faith. For example, they planted substandard seedlings on
    the leased land while planting improved seedlings on their own, and they failed to
    fix deficiencies in the land despite receiving notice of those deficiencies several
    years prior to the expiration of the lease. The actions to which the arbitration award
    attributed damages cannot fairly be described as negligent, and therefore were not
    a covered “occurrence” under the policies. See Oak Crest Const. Co. v. Austin Mut.
    Ins. Co., 
    998 P.2d 1254
    , 1257–58 (Or. 2000).
    Further, in the paragraph of the arbitration award that enumerates the
    damages, the arbitrators (a) cite Campbell and Bascom’s contractual requirement to
    return the lands in “good condition,” (b) state that Campbell and Bascom breached
    this contractual requirement, and (c) conclude that the property owners suffered
    damages “due to” this breach. This is a clear statement that the damages for which
    Campbell and Bascom seek indemnification sound in contract. Campbell and
    Bascom did not persuasively argue that the arbitration award sounded in
    negligence.
    3
    The arbitrators awarded attorneys’ fees as damages for breach of contract,
    which the District Court correctly interpreted not to come within the policies’
    coverage. Furthermore, the District Court properly denied Campbell and Bascom’s
    motion for reconsideration, which largely restated their previous arguments. In
    general, parties may not call on the arbitrators to explain their arbitration award
    after the fact.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-35337

Filed Date: 11/13/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2019