N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TAR LETON LLC , an Ore gon lim ite d lia bility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. STATE FAR

M FIR E AND C ASUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, a

n Illinois insura nc e busine ss c orpora tion, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35540 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-00989-AC
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 Ore gon John V. Ac osta , M a gistra te Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm itte d Nove m be r 9, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : M c K EOW

N, W . FLETC HER , a

nd FISHER , C i rc uit Judge s. Tarle ton LLC (“ T arle ton” ) a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting
sum m ary judgm e nt to Sta

t e Fa rm Fire and C a sua lty

Insura nc e C om pa n y (“ Sta te Fa rm ” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. 

# FIL ED

DEC 05 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.W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Ev anston Ins. C

o. v . OEA, Inc
. , 566 F.3d 915, 918 (9th C ir. 2009). Sum m ary judgm e nt is a

ppropria t e if, vie wing the e vide n c e in the light m ost fa vora ble to Tarle ton, the re is no ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t and Sta te Fa rm is e ntitle d to judgm e nt a s a

m a tte r of la

w. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(a ); Olde n v . Idaho State Bd. of Me d
. , 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th C ir. 2004). Sta te Fa rm

is e n title d to sum

m ary judgm e nt. Ta

rle ton’ s insura

nc e polic y c ove rs c olla

pse s tha t we re “ dire c tly

and im m e diate ly c a use d only by . . . the we ight of c onte nts . . . [a

nd] e quipm e nt.” Ta

rle ton’ s e x pe rt, W a de Younie , ide ntifie d in his e xpe rt re port e le va te d July te m pe ra t ure s a s a c o ntributing c a

use of the 2011
c olla pse of Truss D. The re is thus no genuine dispute tha t a fa c tor othe r tha

n the
we ight of c onte nts a

nd e quipm e nt dire c tly

and im m e diate ly c a use d the c olla

pse . On Ta rle ton’ s own the ory

of c a usation, the insura

nc e polic y

c annot a pply
. Tarle ton a

rgue s tha t sum m ary judgm e nt is im

prope r be c a

use Younie late r subm itte d a

n a ffidavit withdra

wing his opinion, sta

te d in his e x pe rt re port, tha t he a t
wa s a “ l ike ly trigge r” of the truss c olla pse . Howe ve r, the c irc um sta nc e s surrounding the

withdra w a l did not re q

uire the distric t

c ourt to c re dit Younie ’ s c ha nge of opinion. Younie sought to re tra c t a dispositive e xpe rt opinion without
any ne w e vide nc e , only a fte r a m otion for sum

m a ry judgm e nt wa s m a de , a

nd only
a fte r a distric t c ourt de c ision inte rpre ting simila r insura nc e polic y la

n gua g e a le rte d 2Tarle ton to thedam a g ing na ture of Younie ’ s c onc lusion in his ex pe rt re port. Se e Bjugan v . State

Farm Fire

& C as. C o . , 969 F. Supp. 2d 1283, 1291 (D. Or. 2013). Unde r the se c irc u m sta

nc e s, the issue of fa c t

c re a te d by

Younie ’ s la

te r-subm itte d
a ffidav it c annot re a sona

bly be c ha ra c te riz e d a s “ ge nuine .” The distric t c ourt the re fore did not e rr in disre ga rding the he a t-re l a te d portions of Younie ’ s a ffidavit. AFFIRM E D.

3