Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01435/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01435-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 09cv1435

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SKYLARK INVESTMENT PROPERTIES,

LLC, an Arizona limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09 CV 1435 JM (BLM)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR REMAND

Doc. No. 6

vs.

NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY,

a New York corporation; NIC INSURANCE

COMPANY, a business organization of

unknown form; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Skylark Investment Properties, LLC (“Skylark”) initiated this action

against Defendants Navigators Insurance Company and NIC Insurance Company

(collectively, “Navigators”) in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

on May 18, 2009. (Doc. No. 1, Ex. A, “Compl.”). Skylark asserted claims under an

insurance policy Navigators issued and which allegedly covers Skylark as an additional

insured. (Compl. ¶ 11). After answering, Navigators timely removed the case to this

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. No. 1). 

Pending before the court is Skylark’s Motion for Remand filed July 31, 2009.

(Doc. No. 6). Skylark asserts that a Service of Suit Endorsement contained in the

insurance policy contract acts as a mandatory forum selection clause, and therefore

Case 3:09-cv-01435-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/10/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 09cv1435

waives Navigators’s right to removal. (Doc. No. 6 at 3). The Service of Suit

Endorsement, in relevant part, states, 

It is agreed that service of process in suit may be made upon [named

agent] and that in any suit instituted against any one of them upon this contract, the Company will abide by the final decision of such Court or of

any Appellate Court in the event of an appeal. 

(Doc. No. 6, Ex. A at 20). Navigators filed an opposition on August 19, 2009 (Doc. No.

10) and Skylark filed its reply on August 28, 2009 (Doc. No. 11). The court finds this

matter suitable for determination on the papers without oral argument. See Civ. L.R.

7.1.d.1. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

Remand is proper when the parties have agreed to a valid, enforceable, and

mandatory forum selection clause. Pelleport Investors, Inc. v. Budco Quality Theaters,

Inc., 741 F.2d 273, 281 (9th Cir. 1984); N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. PittsburgDes Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 1995). A forum selection clause

is valid and enforceable unless the resisting party shows that enforcement of the clause

would be “unreasonable” under the circumstances. Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,

407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972); Pelleport, 741 F.2d at 279. “To be mandatory, a [forum

selection] clause must contain language that clearly designates a forum as the exclusive

one.” N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers, 69 F.3d at 1037. 

II. DISCUSSION

Navigators does not contend that enforcement of a forum selection clause would

be unreasonable under the circumstances of this case. Cf. Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore

Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972); Pelleport, 741 F.2d at 279. Rather, Navigators argues that

the Service of Suit Endorsement at issue simply is not a forum selection clause at all,

and therefore gives no basis for remand. 

Skylark cites Perini Corp. v. Orion Ins. Co., 331 F. Supp. 453 (E.D. Cal. 1971),

and Oil Well Serv. Co. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 302 F. Supp. 384 (C.D. Cal.

1969), for the proposition that language similar to that contained in the Service of Suit

Endorsement constitutes a forum selection clause. In both cases, however, the language

Case 3:09-cv-01435-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/10/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 09cv1435

was more comprehensive and less ambiguous than that in the Service of Suit

Endorsement. In Perini, the full language reads,

It is agreed that in the event of the failure of the Insurers hereon to pay any amount claimed to be hereunder, the Insurers hereon, at the request of the Assured, will submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States of America and will comply with all the requirements necessary to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the law and

practice of such Court.

It is further agreed that service of process in such suit may be made upon [named agent] and that in any suit instituted against any one of them upon this contract, the Insurers will abide by the final decision of such Court or of any Appellate Court, in the event of an appeal. 

331 F.Supp. at 454. In Oil Well, the full language reads,

It is agreed that in the event of the failure of Underwriters hereon to pay any amount claimed to be due hereunder, Underwriters hereon, at the

request of the Assured (or Reassured), will submit to the jurisdiction of any Court of competent jurisdiction within the United States and will

comply with all requirements necessary to give such Court jurisdiction and all matters arising hereunder shall be determined in accordance with the

law and practice of such Court. . . . in any suit instituted against any one of them upon this contract, Underwriters will abide by the final decision of such Court or of any Appellate Court in the event of an appeal. 

302 F.Supp. at 384. Indeed, both the Perini and Oil Well courts relied in large measure

on the language that is missing from the Service of Suit Endorsement in finding that the

language operated as a mandatory forum selection clause. See Perini, 331 F. Supp. at

454 (relying on the word “submission”); Oil Well, 302 F. Supp. at 385 (relying on the

phrase “submit to the jurisdiction”). So, even though the language discussed in both

Perini and Oil Well seems to be a progenitor of the Service of Suit Endorsement, the

significant curtailment of the language requires that the court make a fresh

interpretation.

The Service of Suit Endorsement does not clearly designate an exclusive forum.

Cf. N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers, 69 F.3d at 1037. The relevant portion of the

Endorsement identifies an agent to receive service of process, which is consistent with

the title of the Endorsement: Service of Suit. While there are undoubtedly more words

than necessary to accomplish this purpose, this ambiguous surplusage does not convert

Case 3:09-cv-01435-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/10/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 09cv1435

the language into a forum selection clause. Indeed, what results falls significantly short

of the necessary standard: a clear designation of an exclusive forum. Plaintiff’s Motion

for Remand is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 10, 2009

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01435-JM-BLM Document 14 Filed 09/10/09 Page 4 of 4