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

PR EM IER

POOLS M ANAGEM ENT C ORP., Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C OLONY INSUR

ANC E C O., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15902 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02038-JAM
EFB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 13, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and REINHAR DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s . Pre m ie r Pools M ana ge m e nt C orp. (“ Pre m ie r” ) a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of C olony

Insura nc e C o. (“ C olony ” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua

nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we re v e rse . B e c a

use the 

# FIL ED
M AY02 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.pa

rtie s are fa m ilia

r with thefa c ts a

n d the proc e dura l history , we ne e d not re c ount it he re . Unde r C a lifornia

insura nc e la w, the insure r’ s duty

to de fe nd a

n insure d is broa de r tha

n its duty to inde m n ify . An insure r m

ust de fe nd its insure d

e ve n a ga inst suits whic h c ould only pote ntia lly give rise to da

m a ge s within the

insure d’ s polic y . Horac e Mann Ins. C

o. v . Barbara B. , 846 P.2d 792, 795 (C a l. 1993) (in ba nk), as modifie d on de nial of re h’g (M ay 13, 1993). The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting C olony

sum m ary judgm e nt. The De c la ra tions C e rtific a te s we re am b iguous on the ir fa c e a s to whic h e ntity or
e ntitie s we re insure d unde r the polic ie s. The De c la ra t ions C e rtific a te s list “ DP Aquat ic s Inc . dba

Pre m ie r Pool Spa s & Pa tio” a s the “ C lie nt Na m e .” B ut the C om m on Polic y De c la

rations list the

“Nam e d Insure d” a s “ Artisa n C ontra c tors Assoc iat ion of Am e ric a ,” who ne ithe r pa rty argue s is the insure d. An insura nc e polic y is a m biguous “ if it is susc e ptible of m ore tha n one re a sona

ble inte rpre tation in the c onte xt of the polic y a s a whole .” Am. Alte rnativ e Ins. C orp. v . Supe rior C ourt , 37 C a l . R

ptr. 3d 918, 923 (C t. App. 2006). The polic y should be inte rpre te d
a s a “ la y m a n would re a d it a

nd not a s it m i ght be ana ly z e d by an attorne y or a n insura nc e e xpe rt.” E.M.M.I. Inc . v . Zuric h Am. Ins. C o . , 84 P.3d 385, 390 (C a l. 2004) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d).

-2-B e c a

use the De c la

ra tions C e rtific a te s we re fa c ia lly am biguous, the distric t
c ourt should ha

ve c o nside re d e x trinsic e vide nc e . Se e Montrose C he m. C orp. v . Admiral Ins. C

o. , 913 P.2d 878, 888 (C a l. 1995) (in ba nk). 1 Whe n the e xtrinsic
e vide nc e is c onside re d, Pre m ie r suffic ie ntly e s ta blishe d tha

t it wa s a n insure d so a s to trigge r a

duty to de fe nd unde r C a l ifornia la w. S e e Ame ron Int’l C

orp. v . Ins. C

o. of Pa. , 242 P.3d 1020, 1024 (C a l. 2010). Thegross re c e ipts e stim at e use d to
c a lc ulat e pre m ium s inc lude d Pre m ie r Pools M an a ge m e nt C orp.’ s re c e ipts, the insura nc e a pplic a tion lists Pre m ie r Pools M ana ge m e nt C orp. a s the e ntity
re sponsiblefor pa

ym e n t, Pre m i e r Pools M ana ge m e nt C orp. pa id the pre m ium s, and C olony de fe nde d Pre m ie r Pools M ana ge m e nt C orp. in a pre vious la

wsuit pursua

nt to the sa m e polic ie s at issue he re . Thus, be c a use the re wa s pote ntia l c ove ra ge for the unde rly ing suit, C olony ha d a duty to de fe nd it. C olony ra ise s othe r c ove ra ge de fe nse s . Howe ve r, the distric t c o urt c o nfine d its de c i sion to the

De c l ara tions C e rtific a te s. W e de c line to c onside r the a dditiona l

1 In a ddition, when de te rm ining whe the r an am biguity e xists unde r C a lifornia la w, a c ourt should c onside r not just the fa c e of the c ontra c t but a lso whe the r offe re d e xtrinsic e vide nc e “ is re le va nt to prove a

m e aning to whic h the la ngua ge of the instrum e nt is re a sona bly susc e ptible .” Dorev . Arnold W orldw ide , Inc

. , 139 P.3d 56, 60 (C a l. 2006) (quoting Pac . Gas & Ele c . C o. v . G.W . Thomas Dray age& Rigging C

o. , 442 P.2d 641, 644 (C a l. 1968)). Thus, the distric t c ourt should ha ve c onside re d the e xtrinsic e vide nc e in a ny e ve nt.
-3-c ove ra ge issue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l, le aving thoseissue s for the distric t
c ourt on re m and to c o n side r in the first insta nc e .

RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

-4-