Ruiz Food Products, Inc. v. Catlin Syndicate Ltd.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUIZ FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., a No. 12-17283
California Corporation,
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00889-BAM
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CATLIN SYNDICATE LIMITED, sued as
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London
Subscribing to Policy No. PCI937441010,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 12, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ruiz Food Products, Inc. appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor
of its insurance carrier, Catlin Syndicate Limited. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1291,1 and affirm.
1. We review de novo a district court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary
judgment. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1086 (9th Cir.
2013). In California, the interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law.
See Oliver Mach. Co. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 232 Cal. Rptr. 691, 695 (Ct. App.
1986).
2. The district court properly concluded there was no coverage under the Catlin
policy, which insured against “accidental or unintentional contamination, impairment
or mislabelling of an Insured product(s), which occurs during or as a result of its
production, preparation, manufacture, packaging or distribution . . . .”
a. In light of the negative tests for the presence of salmonella in Ruiz’s
products and ingredients, there was no evidence of actual contamination.
b. The mere risk of contamination did not trigger coverage. The policy covers
only contamination that actually “occurs.”
1
With the parties’ consent, a magistrate judge conducted the proceedings below.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); see also id. § 636(c)(3) (providing for appellate
jurisdiction).
2
c. Neither a recall of Ruiz’s product nor the economic effect of the recall was
an “impairment” of an insured product under the policy.
3. Because there was no coverage under the policy, Catlin did not breach the
duty of good faith and fair dealing. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc., 900 P.2d 619,
639 (Cal. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
3