Premier Pools Management Corp. v. Colony Insurance Co. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    MAY 02 2016
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                  MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    PREMIER POOLS MANAGEMENT                         No. 14-15902
    CORP.,
    D.C. No. 2:13-cv-02038-JAM-
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             EFB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COLONY INSURANCE CO.,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted April 13, 2016
    San Francisco, California
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge and REINHARDT and CHRISTEN, Circuit
    Judges.
    Premier Pools Management Corp. (“Premier”) appeals the district court’s
    grant of summary judgment in favor of Colony Insurance Co. (“Colony”). We
    have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we reverse. Because the
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    parties are familiar with the facts and the procedural history, we need not recount it
    here.
    Under California insurance law, the insurer’s duty to defend an insured is
    broader than its duty to indemnify. An insurer must defend its insured even against
    suits which could only potentially give rise to damages within the insured’s policy.
    Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 
    846 P.2d 792
    , 795 (Cal. 1993) (in bank), as
    modified on denial of reh’g (May 13, 1993).
    The district court erred in granting Colony summary judgment. The
    Declarations Certificates were ambiguous on their face as to which entity or
    entities were insured under the policies. The Declarations Certificates list “DP
    Aquatics Inc. dba Premier Pool Spas & Patio” as the “Client Name.” But the
    Common Policy Declarations list the “Named Insured” as “Artisan Contractors
    Association of America,” who neither party argues is the insured. An insurance
    policy is ambiguous “if it is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation
    in the context of the policy as a whole.” Am. Alternative Ins. Corp. v. Superior
    Court, 
    37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 918
    , 923 (Ct. App. 2006). The policy should be interpreted
    as a “layman would read it and not as it might be analyzed by an attorney or an
    insurance expert.” E.M.M.I. Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 
    84 P.3d 385
    , 390 (Cal.
    2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    -2-
    Because the Declarations Certificates were facially ambiguous, the district
    court should have considered extrinsic evidence. See Montrose Chem. Corp. v.
    Admiral Ins. Co., 
    913 P.2d 878
    , 888 (Cal. 1995) (in bank).1 When the extrinsic
    evidence is considered, Premier sufficiently established that it was an insured so as
    to trigger a duty to defend under California law. See Ameron Int’l Corp. v. Ins. Co.
    of Pa., 
    242 P.3d 1020
    , 1024 (Cal. 2010). The gross receipts estimate used to
    calculate premiums included Premier Pools Management Corp.’s receipts, the
    insurance application lists Premier Pools Management Corp. as the entity
    responsible for payment, Premier Pools Management Corp. paid the premiums, and
    Colony defended Premier Pools Management Corp. in a previous lawsuit pursuant
    to the same policies at issue here. Thus, because there was potential coverage for
    the underlying suit, Colony had a duty to defend it.
    Colony raises other coverage defenses. However, the district court confined
    its decision to the Declarations Certificates. We decline to consider the additional
    1
    In addition, when determining whether an ambiguity exists under
    California law, a court should consider not just the face of the contract but also
    whether offered extrinsic evidence “is relevant to prove a meaning to which the
    language of the instrument is reasonably susceptible.” Dore v. Arnold Worldwide,
    Inc., 
    139 P.3d 56
    , 60 (Cal. 2006) (quoting Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. G.W. Thomas
    Drayage & Rigging Co., 
    442 P.2d 641
    , 644 (Cal. 1968)). Thus, the district court
    should have considered the extrinsic evidence in any event.
    -3-
    coverage issues for the first time on appeal, leaving those issues for the district
    court on remand to consider in the first instance.
    REVERSED and REMANDED.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-15902

Judges: Thomas, Reinhardt, Christen

Filed Date: 5/2/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024