Steven Baker v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Co. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    MAR 16 2022
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEVEN BAKER, DBA Chloe’s Cafe;                  No. 21-15716
    MELANIA KANG, DBA Chloe’s Cafe, a
    California general partnership, individually     D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05467-LB
    and on behalf of themselves and all others
    similarly situated,
    MEMORANDUM*
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE
    COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 14, 2022**
    San Francisco, California
    *
    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).
    Before: W. FLETCHER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,***
    District Judge.
    Appellants Steven Baker and Melania Kang (“Plaintiffs”) appeal from the
    district court’s dismissal of their First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ commercial
    property insurance policy covered business losses resulting from “direct physical
    loss of or damage to” the insured property. In their complaint, Plaintiffs contend
    that this clause covered the closure of Plaintiffs’ restaurant caused by the COVID-
    19 pandemic. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint, finding that
    neither the COVID virus nor COVID-related closure orders caused direct physical
    loss or damage within the meaning of the insurance policy.
    We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We affirm the order.
    We review de novo a district court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a
    complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). L.A. Lakers, Inc. v. Fed.
    Ins. Co., 
    869 F.3d 795
    , 800 (9th Cir. 2017). Because California law controls our
    interpretation of the relevant insurance policy language, we “are bound to follow
    the decisions of the state’s highest court, and when the state supreme court has not
    spoken on an issue, we must determine what result the court would reach based on
    ***
    The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the
    Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    2
    state appellate court opinions, statutes[,] and treatises.” Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers
    Cas. Ins. Co., 
    15 F.4th 885
    , 889 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Diaz v. Kubler Corp., 
    785 F.3d 1326
    , 1329 (9th Cir. 2015)). “We will ordinarily accept the decision of an
    intermediate appellate court as the controlling interpretation of state law.” 
    Id.
    (quoting Tomlin v. Boeing Co., 
    650 F.2d 1065
    , 1069 n.7 (9th Cir. 1981)).
    As both parties agree, the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Inns by
    the Sea v. California Mutual Insurance Co., 
    286 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576
     (Cal. Ct. App.
    2021), controls the present case. In Inns by the Sea, the Court of Appeal held that
    the commercial property insurance policy language at issue does not cover loss of
    business income caused by COVID-related closure orders. 286 Cal. Rptr. 3d at
    579–80, 590, 593. So too here. Plaintiffs’ insurance policy does not cover their
    COVID-related business losses.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15716

Filed Date: 3/16/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/16/2022