Case ID: f-appx_297/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FAR NORTHWEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC, a Washington limited liability company; et al., Plaintiffs, and Somerset Village Townhomes Condominium Association, as assignee of Plaintiff, Faramarz Ghoddoussi, Appellant, v. COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION UNDERWRITERS OF AMERICA INC., a foreign insurance company; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-35382.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 22, 2008.
    Filed Oct. 30, 2008.
    Steven Neil Driggers, Esquire, Gregory L. Harper, Esquire, Rebecca S. Sullivan, Esquire, Harper Hayes PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs.
    Leonard D. Flanagan, Esquire, Daniel S. Houser, Esquire, Justin Sudweeks, Esquire, Levin & Stein, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
    Joanne Henry, Sloan Bobrick & Oldfield, University Place, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Assignee Somerset Village Townhomes Condominium Association appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurance companies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. Whitman v. Mineta, 541 F.3d 929, 931 (9th Cir.2008).

The Association argues on appeal that the district court erred by finding no coverage in light of undisputed evidence that Faramarz Ghoddoussi’s failure to investigate and repair construction defects, while he acted as the association director, caused water damage to the property. Contrary to the insurance companies’ contention, the Association adequately argued this point in the district court. We agree with the Association’s causation argument. The undisputed evidence establishes that Ghoddoussi’s acts, as the sole officer and director of the Association, caused some of the property damage. As a result, his acts, if merely negligent, were covered under the policy. The district court’s ruling to the contrary is reversed, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.