N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NATIONAL FIRE & M AR INE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. SC OTT HAM PTON, a s He i r, Exe c utor and Pe rsona l R e pre se ntative of the ESTATE OF DIANA HAM PTON, individua lly

and on be ha lf of his m i nor c hildre n I.S. a

nd S.M
. , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt,
and STEVEN A. HOLPER ,

De fe nda n t-c ounte r-c la im ant. No. 19-17235 D.C . No. 2:18-c v-01338-JC M -B NW
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 Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL ED OCT 21 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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.Subm itte d Oc tobe r 19, 2020 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd KELLY *** and M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s. Inte rve nor De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt Sc ott Ha

m pton, a s a re pre s e ntative of the
e sta te of Dia n a Ham pton (“ the Esta

te ” ), a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gran ting Pla intiff-Appe lle e Na tiona l Fire & M arine Insura nc e C o.’ s (“

Na tiona l Fire ” ) m o tion for sum

m ary judgm e nt. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fa m ilia r with the fa c ts of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount the m he re . W e re vie w orde rs gra

nting m otions for sum

m ary judgm e nt de nov o , A.G. v
. Paradise Valle y Unifie d Sc h. Dist. N

o. 69 , 815 F.3d 1195, 1202 (9th C ir. 2016),
and we re vie w a

distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of c o ntra c t provisions de nov o , Flore s v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 898, 905 (9th C ir. 2016). W e re vie w a distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of disc ove ry

unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure 56(d) for a

b use of disc re tion. Atay

v . C nty . of Maui , 842 F.3d 688, 698 (9th C ir. 2016). 1. Unde r Ne va da

la w, for a n insure r to a

void c ove ra g e unde r a

polic y e xc lusion, it m

u st “ (1) write the e xc lusion in obvious a nd una m biguous la

ngua ge

* * 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).

* * * The Honora

ble Pa ul J. Ke lly , Jr., Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Te nth C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion. 2in the polic y , (2) e sta blish tha t the inte rpre tation e xc luding c ove ring unde r the
e xc lusion is the

only inte rpre tation of thee xc lusion tha t c o uld fa irly

be m a de , a

nd (3) e s ta blish tha t the e xc lusion c le arly

a pplie s to [the ] pa

rtic ula r c a s e .” Pow e ll v
. Libe rty Mut. Fire Ins. C

o. , 252 P.3d 668, 674 (Nev. 2011). Apply ing the se thre e e le m e nts, the distric t c o urt prope rly

grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt. The la

ngua ge of the profe ssiona l lia bility insura n c e polic y

obviously
and una m biguously e xc lude s c o ve ra ge for “ [a ] ny loss a rising from , or in
c onne c tion with . . . a

ny e ve nt, he a lth c are e v e nt, or m ana ge d c are e ve nt whe n inte rtwine d with, or inse

pa ra ble from . . . a ny willful viola

tion of a ny la w , sta tute , or re g ulation.” (e m

pha sis om itte d). The re is only one fa ir inte rpre tation of this
e xc lusion: it e xc lude s c ove ra ge for willful viola tions of thela

w. C o ntra

ry to the Esta te ’ s argum e nts, this inte

rpre tation doe s not re n de r the polic y illusory . The polic y doe s not e xc lude c ove ra ge for m a lpra c t ic e ; it e xc lude s c ove ra g e only for
w illful viola tions of thela

w. The e xc lusion the re fore c l e arly a p plie s to this c a se . The wrongful de a th c om

pla int a lle ge s, a

nd Ste ve n Holpe r’ s ple a

a gre e m e nt supports, tha

t Holpe r willfully viola

te d fe de ra l c ontrolle d

substa nc e s la ws, inc l uding 21 U.S.C . § 841(a )(1) a nd (b)(1)(C ), a nd tha t this viola

tion re sulte d in the d e a th of Dia

na Ham pton. The Esta

t e ha s not a dduc e d e vide n c e to the c ontra ry

3that

would c re a te a

ge nuine dispute of m a te ria l fa c t. Se e Sc o tt v . Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Thus, c ove ra ge unde r the polic y is e x c lude d. B e c a use c ove ra ge is c le arly

pre c l ude d, the distric t

c o urt prope rly

re lie ve d Na tiona l Fire of its duty

to de fe nd a

n d inde m n ify Holpe r in the wrongful de a th
a c tion. Na

tiona l Fire ha s no duty

to de fe nd be c a

use “ t he re is no p ote ntial

for
c ove ra ge ,” Unite d N

at’l Ins. C

o . v . Frontie r Ins. C

o., Inc
. , 99 P.3d 1153, 1158 (Ne v. 2004) (quoting Bidart v . Am. Title Ins. C o . , 734 P.2d 732, 734 (Nev. 1987)), unde r the polic y , and it ha s no duty to inde m nify be c a use “ the insure d ’ s a c tivity
and the re sulting loss or da m a ge [do not] ac tually fa ll within the . . . polic y ’ s c ove ra ge ,” id . (c ita

t i on a nd quota tion m arks om itte d). 2. Unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 56(d), whe n a litiga nt “ shows by a ffida v it or de c la

ra tion tha t, for spe c ifie d re a sons, it c annot pre se nt fa c t s e sse ntia l to justify its opposition to [sum m ary judgm e nt] ,” the distric t c ourt m ay :

“ (1) de fe r c onside ring the m otion or de ny it; (2) a llow tim e to obta in a ffidavits or de c la ra tions or to ta

k e disc ove ry ; or (3) issue any othe r a p propria te orde r.” Atay , 842 F.3d a

t 698 (quoting Fe d. R . C iv. P. 56(d)). “ The burde n is on thepa rty
se e k ing a R ule 56(d) c ontinua

nc e ‘ to proffe r suffic ie nt fa c ts to show tha t the
e vide nc e sought e x ists, a

nd tha t it would pre ve nt sum

m ary judgm e nt.’ ” Id.

4(quoting C

hanc e v . Pac -Te l Te le tracInc
. , 242 F.3d 1151, 1161 n.6 (9th C i r. 2001)). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng the Esta

te le a ve to
c onduc t furthe r disc ove ry unde r R ule 56(d) be fore granting sum m ary judgm e nt. The a ffidavit the Esta

te subm itte d in support of its re que st sought disc ove ry re late d only to Holpe r and Ha

m pton’ s doc tor-patie nt re lat ionship a nd the c a use of Ham pton’ s de a th; it did not se e k a ny inform a tion ne c e ssa

ry to a c c ura te ly

inte rpre t the t e rm s of Holpe r’ s profe ssiona l lia bility insura n c e polic y

suc h tha t the disc ove ry would pre c lude sum

m a ry judgm e nt. 3. Fina lly , the Esta

te ’ s public polic y

argum e nts do not re quire us to
re a c h a diffe re nt re s ult. The Ne va da Supre m e C ourt ha s he ld tha t public polic y c onside ra tions do not disfa vor “ the e nforc e m e nt of inte ntiona l , c rim ina l, a nd
se xua l a c t e xc lusions in profe ssiona l lia bility polic ie s.” Riv e ra v . N

e v . Me d. Liability Ins. C o. , 814 P.2d 71, 74 (Ne v. 1991). AFFIRM E D.

5