N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ASSOC IATION OF APAR TM ENT OW NER S OF THE M OOR INGS, INC ., Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. DONGB U INSUR

ANC E C O ., LTD., a R e p ublic of Kore a

C orpora tion, De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-16666

DC No. 15-0497 B M K
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii B arry M . Kurre n, M a g i strate Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2018 Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : TASHIM A , W . FLETC HER , and HUR W ITZ, C i rc u it Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt Dongbu Insura

nc e C o., Ltd. (“ Dongbu” ) a ppe a l s the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t in fa vor of Pla intiff-Appe l le e Assoc ia tion of Apa rtm e nt Owne rs of the M oorings, Inc . (“ M oorings” ). On c ross-m o tions for sum m ary 

# FIL ED
JUL 20 2018 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.judgm e nt, the distric t c o urt c o n c lude d tha t Dongbu wa s re quire d

to inde m nify M oorings for a

n a ward of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s tha

t a n a rbitra tor orde re d M oorings to pa y to Jo-Anne and B re nt B ra de n (the “ B ra de n s” ) in c onne c tion with the B ra de ns pre v a i ling on a

c la im that the ir c ondom inium unit inc urre d wat e r da m a ge due to a le a king la na i roof. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. R e vie wing de novo, Guatay

C hristian Fe llow

ship v . C ounty of San Die

go , 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th C ir. 2011), we a ffirm
. Dongbu wa s obliga

t e d to re i m

burse those sum s tha

t M oorings be c a m e le ga lly obliga te d to pa y a s da m a ge s be c a

use of c ove re d prope rty

dam a ge . It is undispute d tha

t M oorings be c a m e le ga lly obliga te d to pa y the B ra de ns’ a ttorne y ’ s fe e s onc e the sta

te c ourt c onfirm e d the arbitration a ward. Furthe r, the wa te r dam a ge to the B ra de n s’ hom e c onstitute s c ove re d prope rty dam a ge unde r the polic y , a s Dongbu c onc e de d be low. Dongbu’ s re lia

nc e on c a se s whe re the re wa s
no c ove re d prope rty

dam a ge is thus unfounde d. The polic y

doe s not de fine “ dam a ge s,” but in othe r c onte xts Ha wa ii ha s note d tha t “ an a w ard of . . . fe e s to a

pre va iling pa

rty is inhe re ntly

in the na ture of a dam a ge award.” Fought & C o . v . Ste e l Eng’g & Ere c tion, Inc
. , 951 P.2d 487, 501 (Ha w. 1998). C o n trary

to Dongbu’ s a sse rtions, Ha w a ii ha s re c ogniz e d tha

t an
award of fe e s is “ i n the na ture of da m a ge s” outside the c onte xt whe re fe e s are
2awarde d unde r the rule announc e d in U y e m ura v . W

ic k , 551 P.2d 171, 176 (Ha w. 1976). Se e

, e .g., N e lson v . Haw aiian Home

s C omm’n , 307 P.3d 142, 148–49 & n.4 (Ha w. 2013). W

he the r the fe e s he re are Uy e mura fe e s is the re fore inc onse que ntia l. M ore o ve r, in the c onte xt of the polic y , the pla in m e aning of “ dam a ge s”
e nc om pa sse s the fe e s the B ra d e ns inc urre d to vindic a te the ir c la i m for wa t e r dam a ge to the ir hom e , e ve n if those fe e s a re not a m e a s ure of tha

t phy sic a l da

m a ge . The fe e s a

warde d to the B ra de ns a s the pre va iling pa rty thus fa l l within the
m e aning of “ dam a ge s” unde r the polic y . Tha t the fe e s we re awarde d in c onne c tion with the B ra d e ns’ sta

tus a s a pre v a i ling pa

rty doe s not bring the m

outside the polic y ’ s c ove ra ge . The polic y provide s c ove ra ge for dam a ge s M oorings m ust pa y “ be c a use of” c ove re d prope rty dam a ge . This phra se , whic h is unde fine d , c o n note s a non-e x a c ting c a

usation
re quire m e nt whe re by

an y award of da

m a ge s tha t flows from

c ove re d prope rty dam a ge is c ove re d, unle ss othe rwise e xc lude d. C f. C . Bre w e r & C

o. v . Marine Inde m. Ins. C

o. of Am. , 347 P.3d 163, 166 (Ha w . 2015). The B ra d e n s we re
awarde d fe e s, like ly

unde r Haw. R e v. Stat . § 514B -162(e ), be c a use the ir hom e inc urre d wate r da m a ge , a

nd the y inc urre d a dditiona l loss in orde r to re c ove r for this da m a ge . The fe e award is thus prope rly c onside re d a

n a ward of da

m a ge s tha t

3M oorings m ust pa y “ b e c a u se of” tha

t c o ve re d prope rty dam a ge an d is not othe rwise e xc lude d. At the le a st, e xam i n ing the re le va nt la n gua g e in the c onte xt of the polic y a s a whole m a ke s c le ar that M oorings’ inte rpre ta tion is a re a sona ble one , m e aning a

ny
a m biguity m ust be re solve d in fa

vor of c ove ra ge . S

e e Allstate

Ins. C o . v . Prue tt , 186 P.3d 609, 614 (Ha

w . 2008). AFFIRM E D.

4