N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R IC HARD E. HASKINS, a s a n individual, a s truste e of the San B runo C ha nne l R e m e diation Trust, a

nd a s suc c e ssor in inte re st to de c e de nt Arthur “ B uz z ” Ha skins, Jr.; AR

THUR L. HASKINS, a s an individual a

nd a s suc c e ssor in intere s t to de c e d e nt Arthur “ B uz z ” Ha skins, Jr.; AR THUR

B UZZ HASKINS, Jr., de c e de nt, by and through his suc c e ssors in intere st, R ic ha rd E. Ha skins a

nd Arthur L. Ha skins, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. EM PLOYER S INSUR

ANC E OF W AUSAU, a

W isc onsin c orporation; NATIONW IDE INDEMN ITY C OM PANY, a

n O h io c orporation, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-16543 D.C . No. 3:14-c v-01671-JST
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Jon S. Tiga

r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 6, 2017 

# FIL ED
FEB 01 2018 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.San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd RIC E, ** C hie f Distric t Judge
. R ic ha

rd Ha skins, Arthur Ha skins, a nd the e s tate of Arthur “ B uz z ” Ha skins (c olle c tive ly

Ha skins) a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt in fa vor of Ha skins’ lia bility insure r, Em

ploy e rs Insura

nc e of W a

usa u (W a usa u ), and its pa

re n t
c om pa ny , Nat ionwide Inde m

n i ty C om pa ny , c onc e rning W a

usa u’ s duty to de fe nd
c ounte rc la im s in Ha skins’ e nvironm e nta l c le an -up a c tion a ga inst C he roke e Ac quisition C orporation, C h e roke e San Fran c isc o, LLC , and C he roke e Gran d Ave nue , LLC (c olle c tive ly C he roke e ). The distric t c ourt gra n te d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of W a

usa u ba se d on its de te rm i nation tha t W a u sa u sa t isfie d its duty to de fe nd, a

nd tha t Ha s kins viola

te d the c oope ra t ion a

nd no-volunta

ry pa ym e nts provisions of the

insura nc e c ontra c t. 1. This c ourt re vie ws denov o the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. Se e UtheTe c h . C orp. v . Ae trium, Inc
. , 808 F.3d 755, 759 (9th C ir. 2015). The distric t c ourt did not err in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of W a usa u. W a usa u im m e diate ly unde rtook a

de fe nse of the c ounte rc la im by pursuing a

se ttle m e nt with C he roke e following a re a sona ble inve s tiga

tion into

* * The Honora

ble Thom a s O. R ic e , C hie f Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion. 2c ove ra ge . Se e C alifornia Shoppe

rs, Inc . v . Roy al Globe

Ins. C o. , 175 C a l. App. 3d 1, 55 (1985) (holding tha

t a n insure d who a lle ge s tha t his insurer wa s dila

tory in providing a

de fe nse be a

rs the burde n of showing tha t the insure r de la

y e d “ without prope r c a use ” ). The propose d se ttle m e nt would ha ve dism isse d

with pre j udic e the
c ounte rc la im s for re c ove ry of a ll c osts inc urre d, dism isse d without pre judic e any
c ounte rc la im s for pote ntia l future c osts, a nd the re by

e l im inate d C he roke e ’ s
c ounte rc la im s from the litiga tion. The spe c ulative pote ntia l of future c osts did not rise to the le ve l of a bre a c h of the duty to de fe n d or ba d fa ith on thepa rt of W a usa u. Se e Buss v . Supe rior C ourt , 16 C a l. 4th 35, 46 (1997) (c onc luding tha t a n insure r’ s duty

to de fe nd is “ disc ha

rge d whe n the a c tion is c onc lude d” ). Ha skins fa ile d to ra ise a

m a te ria l issue of fa c t re ga rding the duty to de fe n d. Se e May e s v . W inC o Holdings, Inc

. , 846 F.3d 1274, 1277 (9th C i r. 2017). 2. W a usa u wa s not re quire d to a

tte nd the m e diat ions be c a use W a usa u ha d
re a c he d a se ttle m e nt with C he roke e and wa s not re quire d to de fe n d Ha skins’
a ffirm a tive c la i m s for re l ie f in the unde rly ing a c tion. Se e Silv a & Hill C onstr. C o.
v . Employ e rs Mut. Liab. Ins. C o . , 19 C a l. App. 3d 914, 927 (1971). Sum m ary judgm e nt on this c la i m

wa s prope r. 3. W a usa u wa s not re quire d to a c t within forty da y s be c a use the te nde r of a
c la im for de fe nse doe s not m e e t the de finition of a “ p roof of c la im .” Se e C a l. C ode

3R e gs. tit. 10, § 2695.2(s) (de fining “ p roof of c la im ” a s “ doc um e ntation in the posse s sion of theinsure r . . . tha t provide s a

ny e vide nc e of the c la i m

and tha t
re a s ona bly supports the

m a gnitude or the am ount of thec l a im e d loss” ); se e also id. § 2695.7 (providing for a c c e pta nc e or de nia l of proof of c la im within forty

da y s). Sum m ary judgm e nt on this c l a im

wa s prope r. 4. Ha skins a ssum e d its own de fe n se by bre a c h ing the duty

to c oope ra te through obje c t ing to C he roke e ’ s m otion to dism iss the c ounte rc l a im s a

nd thwa rting W a usa u’ s atte m p ts to se ttle . W a

usa u wa s substa

ntia lly pre judic e d by

this bre a c h be c a use C he roke e withdre w its initia l se ttle m e nt offe r and e nde d up se ttling with Ha skins dire c tly

for a m uc h gre a te r sum . Truc k

Ins. Ex c h. v

. Unigard Ins. C o. , 79 C a l. App. 4th 966, 976 (2000) (holding tha t a n insure r’ s pe rform anc e is e xc use d

“ [w] he re an

insure d viola

te s a c oope ra tion c l a

use ” and the insure r’ s “ a

bility to provide a de fe nse ha s be e n substa

ntia lly pre judic e d ” ) (c ita

tions omitte d). Sum m ary judgm e nt on this c l a im

wa s prope r. 5. The polic ie s c onta ine d a no-volunta

ry -paym e nts c la

use tha t prohibite d the i nsure d from “ volunta rily m ak[ing] any

pa ym e nt” or “ a s sum [ing] any obliga tion.” Ha skins bre a c h e d this c la use by se ttling the

unde rly ing a c tion without the c onse nt of its de fe n ding insure r. Se e Truc k Ins. Ex c h. , 79 C a l. App. 4th a t 981. Sum m ary judgm e nt on this c l a im

wa s prope r.
46. The distric t c ourt’ s orde r re s olve d a ll c la i m s e xc e pt de fe nse c osts, whic h

we re late r se ttle d be twe e n the pa rtie s. Ha skins’ c la im s for bre a c h of c ontra c t, bre a c h of the im

plie d c o ve na

nt of good fa ith a

n d fa ir de a ling, a

nd de c la ra tory re lie f
we re pre dic a te d upon a

finding of a

bre a c h of the duty

to de fe nd a

nd a re fore c lose d by the distric t

c o urt’ s orde r. AFFIRM E D.

5