Case ID: f-appx_677/html/0346-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, fka NIC Insurance Company, a New York corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56723
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted February 10, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed February 14, 2017
    Abel Eric Aguilera, Attorney, Raymond Earl Brown, Esquire, The Aguilera Law Group, Costa Mesa, CA, Richard Anthony Semon, Esquire, Attorney, Bohm Matsen, LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Timothy P. Lindell, Gordon & Rees LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company and Defendant Navigators Specialty Insurance Company both insured a subcontractor that was sued for performing faulty construction work on a retaining wall. Defendant denied that it had a duty to defend the subcontractor. The subcontractor settled the underlying case. Plaintiff, paid the entire amount of the settlement and then initiated this action, seeking declaratory relief, equitable subrogation, equitable contribution, and equitable indemnity. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, and Plaintiff timely appeals. On de novo review, Reese v. Travelers Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 1056, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 1997), we affirm.

Defendant’s policy did not cover the loss. The underlying case against the subcontractor alleged only damage caused by “subsidence,” a? defined in the policy. The policy excluded “subsidence” from coverage, including the duty to defend.

Even if the initial complaint in the underlying case could be read to allege property damage other than that caused by subsidence, Defendant’s investigation clarified that the only damage Plaintiff claimed was damage caused by subsidence. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., Inc,, 11 Cal.4th 1, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619, 628 (1995) (holding that, when extrinsic facts eliminate the potential for coverage, an insurer may decline to defend even if the complaint had suggested potential liability). That is, the investigation eliminated any possibility of coverage.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,