Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    AUG 13 2019
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ARROW ELECTRONICS, INC., a New York No. 18-55810
    Corporation,
    D.C. No.
    Plaintiff-counter-     2:17-cv-05247-JFW-JEM
    defendant-Appellant,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
    COMPANY, a Massachusetts Corporation,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
    COMPANY, FKA Aetna Casualty and Surety
    Company, AKA St. Paul Travelers,
    Defendant-counter-claimant-
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted June 6, 2019
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: MURGUIA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and GAITAN,** District
    Judge.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge
    for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    This is an insurance-coverage dispute arising from environmental
    contamination at Arrow Electronics, Inc.’s (“Arrow”) research facility located in
    Huntsville, Alabama (the “Huntsville Facility”). After determining that California
    substantive law applied, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
    the insurers, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company and Liberty Mutual
    Insurance Company. Arrow appeals, arguing that the district court should have
    applied Alabama law.
    We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we review the district
    court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza
    Collection Found., 
    862 F.3d 951
    , 959 (9th Cir. 2017). We reverse and remand with
    instructions to apply Alabama law.1
    To determine which state’s substantive law applies, we look to California
    choice-of-law rules. See Narayan v. EGL, Inc., 
    616 F.3d 895
    , 898 (9th Cir. 2010).
    Under California law, a “contract is to be interpreted according to the law and
    usage of the place where it is to be performed; or, if it does not indicate a place of
    performance, according to the law and usage of the place where it is made.” Cal.
    Civ. Code § 1646. “A contract indicates a place of performance within the meaning
    of section 1646 if the contract expressly specifies a place of performance or if the
    intended place of performance can be gleaned from the nature of the contract and
    1
    We deny Arrow’s motion for judicial notice, Dkt. No. 29, because the
    submitted documents are unnecessary to deciding this appeal.
    2
    its surrounding circumstances.” Frontier Oil Corp. v. RLI Ins. Co., 
    153 Cal. App. 4th
    1436, 1443 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted and alteration
    incorporated). The intended place of performance for a commercial liability
    insurance policy covering “operations at one or more fixed locations” is generally
    “the jurisdiction where the operations are located” because this is where the insurer
    and insured expect a third-party to file a complaint against the insured. 
    Id. at 1461.
    This case begins and ends with Frontier Oil. See Stoner v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.,
    
    311 U.S. 464
    , 467 (1940) (“[I]n cases where jurisdiction rests on diversity of
    citizenship, federal courts . . . must follow the decisions of intermediate state courts
    in the absence of convincing evidence that the highest court of the state would
    decide differently.”). Each of Arrow’s primary insurance policies explicitly
    mentions the Huntsville Facility or Alabama, and each of the excess policies is
    clearly drafted with reference to the primary policies. Thus, there is “little doubt”
    that “the understanding of the parties at the time they entered into the insurance
    contract[s]” was that Alabama law would apply to claims arising from the
    Huntsville Facility. Frontier Oil, 
    153 Cal. App. 4th
    at 1461. Accordingly, Alabama
    was the intended place of performance within the meaning of California Civil
    Code § 1646 for purposes of this case.
    REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this
    decision.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-55810

Filed Date: 8/13/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/13/2019