N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M INDEN AIR

C ORPOR

ATION, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. STARR INDEMN ITY & LIAB ILITY C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-15712 DC No. 13-0592 HDM

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Howa rd D. M c Kibbe n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 12, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM Aand B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEITM A

N, * * Distric t Judge . Afte r its a irc ra ft, a

W orld W a

r II vinta ge a irc ra ft m odifie d for fire suppre ssion, wa s da

m a ge d in a

whe e ls-up la

nding, Appe lla

nt M inde n Air 

# FIL ED

N OV 03 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 Honora

ble M atthe w Fre de ric k

Le itm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.C orporation (“ M inde n Air” ) m a de a c la im unde r an insura nc e polic y

issue d by Appe l le e Sta

rr Inde m nity & Lia bility C om pa ny (“ Starr” ). The polic y

provide d that , if the a irc ra ft wa s a

tota l loss, M inde n Air would re c ove r the insure d va lue of the a irc ra ft, or $3.4 million. As de fine d in thepolic y , a tota l loss oc c urre d whe n the re pa ir c osts plus the

sa lva g e va lue e qua l e d or e xc e e de d the insure d va lue of the a irc ra ft. In thee ve n t the pa rtie s c ould not ag re e , the polic y provide d tha

t the am ount of loss would be

de t e rm ine d by a

ne utra l um

pire ba se d on e stim ate s subm itte d by

e a c h pa rty ’ s own, inde

pe nde nt a ppra ise r. The ne utra l um

pire he re de te rm ine d

tha t the am ount of loss, a s m e a s ure d in re pa ir c osts, wa s $1,871,038 – a nd so c onside ra

bly le ss tha n $3.4 m illion, whic h wa s the insure d va lue . No e vide nc e wa s subm itte d a bout thesa l va ge va l ue of the a irc ra ft. Starr pa id M inde n Air $1,871,038, m inus thea p plic a ble de duc tible . The distric t c o urt the re fore grante d sum m ary judgm e nt for Sta

rr on M i nde n Air’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t a

n d ba d fa i th c la im s. M inde n Air now a ppe a l s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

n d we a ffirm . W e re vie w a grant of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Osw alt v . Re solute Indus., Inc . , 642 F.3d 856, 859 (9th C ir. 2011). “ W e de te rm ine , vie wing the e vide nc e in the light m o st fa vora ble to the nonm oving pa

rty , whe the r the re are any ge nuine i ssue s of m ate ria l fa c t a nd whe the r the distric t

c o urt c orre c tly

a pplie d the 2re le va

nt substa n tive la w.” Id. (quoting W

a llis v . Princ e

ss C ruise s, Inc . , 306 F.3d 827, 832 (9th C ir. 2002)). 1. The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d sum

m a ry judgm e nt in fa

vor of Starr on M i nde n Air’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la i m . Unde r Ne v a da la w, te rm s in a

n insura nc e polic y

m ust be vie we d in the ir pla in a n d ordina ry se nse and re a d in the c onte xt of the polic y

a s a whole . Se e Fourth St. Plac e v . Trav e le rs Inde m. C o. , 270 P.3d 1235, 1239 (Nev . 2011), a s modifie d on re h’g (M a y 23, 2012). A c ourt should not rewrite othe rwise una m biguous c o ntra c t provisions, or inc re a s e an insure r’ s obliga

tions whe re the y

are inte ntiona lly

and una m biguously lim ite d by the p artie s. F

arme rs Ins. Grp. v . Stonik e x re l . Stonik

, 867 P.2d 389, 391 (Nev. 1994). Ne va da

re c ogniz e s tha

t insura nc e c ontra c ts m ay de le gate de te rm inations a bout theam ount of loss to a n a ppra ise r, provide d the a

ppra ise r doe s not e x c e e d his a uthority by inte rpre t ing the polic y

or re solving c ove ra ge dispute s. Se e St. Paul Fire& Marine

Ins. C o. v . W right , 629 P.2d 1202, 1202-03 (Ne v . 1981). He re , the a

ppra isa l c la

use de le gate d a

uthority to the ne utra l um

pire to de te rm i ne the am ount of loss. R e a d in thec onte xt of the polic y a s a whole , the pla i n m e aning of this provision una m biguously a uthoriz e d the ne utra l um

pire to a sse ss the am ount of loss in te rm s of the c o st to re pa ir the phy sic a l da m a ge c a use d

3by

the whe e ls-up la

nding, ra the r tha n listing only

a de sc ription of tha

t phy sic a l dam a ge – a s M inde n Air c onte nds. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly c onc lude d tha

t the ne utra l um

pire ’ s re pa ir c ost e stim ate wa s de te rm inative of whe the r the a irc ra ft wa s a tota l loss. M inde n Air fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r the ne utra l um pire ’ s e s tim at e ignore d spe c ific c osts tha

t would ha

v e be e n c ove re d unde r the polic y . M inde n Air a lso fa ile d to ra ise a

tria ble issue a s to whe the r the ne utra l um pire ’ s e s tim at e c onte m p late d a re pa ir proc e ss tha

t would pe rm i t the a i rc ra ft to be re turne d to se rvic e with re ga

rd to re pa irs for the dam a ge susta ine d in thewhe e ls-up la nding. No e v ide nc e wa s subm itte d a bout the a irc ra ft’ s sa lva ge va lue . T h e distric t c ourt the re fore c orre c tly

c onc lude d tha

t M inde n Air fa i le d to ra ise a tria ble issue a s to whe the r the whe e ls-up la

nding re s ulte d in a

tota l loss in light of the

ne utra l um p ire ’ s binding e stim ate for c onside ra bly le ss tha

n the insure d va lue of the a irc ra ft. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm

the distric t

c o urt’ s grant of sum

m ary judgm e nt in favor of Sta

rr on M i nde n

Air’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im . 2. The pa

rtie s a gre e tha

t if we a ffirm the distric t

c o urt on M inde n Air’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c l a im , we should a l so a ffirm the distric t c ourt’ s gra

n t of

4sum

m ary judgm e nt for Sta

rr on M inde n Air’ s ba d

fa i th c l a im s. Ac c ordingly , we a ffirm the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt on the se issue s, a s we ll. The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is A FFIRM E D.

5