Sydney Holland v. Travelers Commercial Ins. ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 9 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    SYDNEY HOLLAND, an individual,                  No.    20-55680
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
    2:19-cv-02604-SVW-RAO
    v.
    TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL                            MEMORANDUM*
    INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 7, 2021**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Sydney Holland appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of
    Travelers Commercial Insurance Company on her breach of contract claim.
    Holland alleges that Travelers breached its duty to defend her in a lawsuit brought
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Page 2 of 2
    by her former fiancé, Sumner Redstone. We affirm.
    An insurer’s duty to defend in California is broad, but not limitless. To be
    relieved of its duty, the insurer must prove that no potential for coverage exists
    under the policy. Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng’rs v. Fed. Ins. Co., 
    307 F.3d 944
    , 949 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, Travelers had to show that “the facts alleged
    in the underlying suit can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue that could
    bring it within the policy coverage.” 
    Id.
    Travelers made that showing here. None of the facts alleged in the Redstone
    complaint could conceivably trigger coverage under the relevant Travelers
    homeowners policies. The gravamen of the complaint is that Holland intentionally
    participated in a willful and fraudulent scheme to acquire Redstone’s considerable
    assets by taking “near total control” of his life. The facts alleged support claims
    founded only upon intentional conduct, which is excluded from coverage under the
    policies. Holland relies on unpleaded claims for false imprisonment or negligence,
    but even those claims could not give rise to the potential for coverage because they
    would be “inseparably intertwined” with the noncovered intentional conduct
    alleged in the complaint. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 
    846 P.2d 792
    , 798
    (Cal. 1993).
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-55680

Filed Date: 4/9/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/9/2021