N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NAVIGATOR S SPEC IALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a Ne w York C orporation, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. NATIONW IDE M UTUAL INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. Nos. 14-17085

15-16295 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01062-GM S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. 1. W e a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s holding tha t the B u sine ss Auto Polic y issue d by Nationwide M utua l Insura nc e C om pa ny (Na tionwide ) to Tita

n Fra m ing 

# FIL ED
NOV 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Pa ge 2 of 3

C om pa ny (Tita n) provide d c ove ra ge for the de fe nse and se ttle m e nt of Susa n M c A rdle ’ s wrongful de a th a c tion a ga inst Tita n. The polic y ’ s pla in la

ngua ge sta

te s that it c ove rs “ a

ny a uto,” but it is unc le a

r whe the r “ any a

uto” c ove rs the ve hic le he re . In First Ame ric an Title Insuranc e C

o . v . J ohnson Bank

, 372 P.3d 292, 296 (Ariz
. 2016), the Ariz ona Supre m e C ourt e xpla ine d tha t unc e rta intie s in a

n insura nc e c ontra c t, suc h a s the m e aning of “ any a uto” in Na

tionwide ’ s polic y , m

ust be re solve d in the following m anne r: “ If a c la use a ppe ars am

biguous, weinte rpre t it by looking to le gisla

tive goa l s, soc ia l polic y , and the tra nsa c tion a s a

whole . If
an am biguity re m a ins a fte r c onside ring the s e fa c tors, we c o nstrue it a ga inst the insure r.” C onside ra tion of thele gisla tive goa ls, soc ia l polic y , a nd the tra nsa c tion be twe e n Nationwide an d Tita n a s a whole doe s not re s olve the unc e rta inty of the te rm “ any a uto.” Ac c ordingly , unde r Ariz ona Supre m e C ourt la

w, the te rm

“ any
a uto” m ust be c onstrue d a ga inst Na tionwide . The distric t

c ourt c orre c tly
c onc lude d tha

t the B usine ss Auto Polic y c o ve re d the c la im s in the M c Ardle a c tion. 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t the princ iple of e quita

ble subroga t ion e ntitle d Na

viga tors Spe c ia lty

Insura nc e C om pa ny (Naviga tors) to
c ontribution from

Nationwide . Unde r the princ iple of e quita ble subroga

tion, a n insure r that ha s provide d

a de fe nse to a

n insure d c a

n c om pe l c ontribution from

“ an othe r insure r who ha d a sim ila r obliga tion to the

sa m e insure d.” N

ationalPa ge 3 of 3

Inde mnity

C o. v . St. Paul Insuranc e C ompanie s , 724 P.2d 544, 545 (Ariz . 1986) (e n ba nc ); se e also Sourc e c orp, Inc . v . N orc u t t , 258 P.3d 281, 285 (Ariz . C t. App. 2011) (noting tha

t e quita ble subroga

tion e xte nds not only

to de fe n s e c osts but a lso to a ny de bt tha t o u ght to bepa id by

one c re d itor ra

t he r tha n a nothe r). Na tionwide
and Na viga tors ha d sim ila

r obliga tions to Tita

n— unde r Ariz ona

la w, the y both provide d prim a

ry c ove ra ge for M c Ardle ’ s c l a im s. Se e Harbor Insuranc e C o. v . Unite d Se rv ic e s Automobile

Ass’n , 559 P.2d 178, 183 (Ariz . C t . App. 1976). The distric t c o urt did not e rr in holding tha t Nationwide m

u st re im b urse Naviga

t ors in the a m ount of $218,357.46, ha lf of Na viga tors’ se ttle m e nt c osts a

nd ha lf of its de fe nse c osts from

the date of te nde r to Na

tionwide
. S

e e N u c o r C orp. v . Employ e rs Insuranc e C

o. of W ausau , 296 P.3d 74, 85 (Ariz . C t. App. 2012) (a lloc ating de fe nse c osts a m ong insure rs is a

m a tte r of e quita

ble judic ia l disc re tion). 3. The distric t c ourt did not err in a warding Na

viga tors re a sona

ble
a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r Ariz ona R e vise d Statute s § 12-341.01(A). Se e C alifornia C asualty Insuranc e C

o. v . Ame r ic a n Family Mutual Insuranc e C o. , 94 P.3d 616, 622 (Ariz . C t. App. 2004). AFFIRM E D.