Henstooth Ranch, LLC v. Burlington Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENSTOOTH RANCH, LLC, No. 18-15167
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00006-SI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge.
Sonoma Land Trust (“SLT”) sued Henstooth Ranch, LLC (“Henstooth”) in
California state court alleging that Henstooth’s landscaping activities violated
*
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).
***
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
SLT’s conservation easement. Henstooth sued The Burlington Insurance
Company (“Burlington”) seeking a judgment that Burlington owed Henstooth a
duty to defend Henstooth from this suit under Henstooth’s insurance policy with
Burlington. The district court granted summary judgment to Burlington and
denied Henstooth’s motion for summary judgment. We review the district court’s
grant of Burlington’s summary judgment motion, its denial of Henstooth’s
summary judgment motion, and its interpretation of Henstooth’s insurance policy
under California law de novo. Westport Ins. Corp. v. Cal. Cas. Mgmt. Co., 916
F.3d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm.
The district court correctly held that Henstooth’s insurance policy with
Burlington did not extend to coverage for intentional acts. The policy covers
property damage caused by an “occurrence,” which is defined as “an accident.” If
Henstooth had shown that one of the claims in SLT’s suit was potentially based on
its accidental conduct, that would have required Burlington to defend Henstooth
from the entire suit. See Fire Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 534,
537 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (“Even a single claim that does not predominate, but for
which there is potential coverage, will trigger the insurer’s duty to defend.”).
However, because the landscaping that SLT alleges caused its damages was
entirely intentional, the district court correctly held that Burlington had no duty to
defend Henstooth.
2
Henstooth’s argument, that “the damage was unintentional” even if the
actions it allegedly took were intentional, is unavailing. As California courts have
repeatedly held, “where the insured intended all of the acts that resulted in the
victim’s injury, the event may not be deemed an ‘accident’ merely because the
insured did not intend to cause injury.” Merced Mut. Ins. Co. v. Mendez, 261 Cal.
Rptr. 273, 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989); see also State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. v. Frake,
128 Cal. Rptr. 3d 301, 312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (“[T]he term ‘accident’ does not
apply where an intentional act resulted in unintended harm.”). The California
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. v. Ledesma &
Meyer Construction Co. is consistent with this rule. 418 P.3d 400, 406 ‫(ؘ‬Cal. 2018)
(reaffirming Merced’s holding that there is no accident where an insured “intended
the acts that caused the injury, but not the injury”). Because SLT’s suit does not
concern accidental conduct under this state-law standard, Burlington had no duty
to defend Henstooth from it.
AFFIRMED.
3