NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALORICA, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STAR R SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas Corporation,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 55458

D.C. No. 8:19

- cv

- 00690

- JVS

- KES

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 6, 2021 * * Pasadena, California

Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Alorica, Inc. argues that a letter from Express Scripts to Alorica dated

September 25, 2018, constitutes a “claim” against Alorica under the terms of

Alorica’s insurance policy with Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company

. The

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 9 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALSPage 2 of 3

district court rejected that argument and granted summary judgment to Starr. W e

affirm.

In relev ant part, the policy defines a “claim” as a “written demand for

monetary or non

- monetary relief

. ” Express Scripts ’ letter does not fall within that

definition. The letter rejects Alorica ’s demand for $4.8 million. A refusal to

accept a demand is not itself a demand ; it is only a refusal. Express Scripts’ letter

does not ask Alorica to do anything a t all . Q uite the opposit e : The letter declare s
Express Scripts’ unconditional willingness to “cooperate reasonably in any

investigation” into the un derlying computer fraud
, and to pay Alorica $56,791
, with no consideration from Alorica expected or requested.

Alorica characterizes Express Scripts’ refusal to pay as a request that Alorica

forgive a debt , and argues that Express Scripts’ letter therefore constitutes a
“demand for monetary relief

. ” But the letter could be characterized as a request to
forgive a debt only if Express Scripts in fact owed a debt in the first place

. Express

Scripts de nies that it owes Alorica $4.8 million
, and i ndeed Alorica has made no

further effort to collect this money

.

I n each of the cases on which Alorica relies
, a “demand” or “ claim ” arose

when someone ask ed the insured party for money or to work for free. See , e.g. ,

Westrec Marina M

gmt. , Inc. v. Arrowood Indem

. Co. , 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 264 , 268

(Ct. App. 2008) (“The attorney’s request for compensation while threateningPage 3 of 3

litigation was a ‘demand[.]’”); Phoenix Ins

. Co. v. Sukut Co nstr

. Co. , 186 Cal.

Rptr. 513, 514 (Ct. App. 1982) ( “Sukut asked Malter to work without pay to

correct the problem with the lien.”) ; Presidio Wealth Mgmt., LLC v. Columbia Cas.

Co. , 2014 WL 1341696, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2014) (holding that investors’

“ demand[] that Presidio return their funds

. . . constituted a claim”)

. Alorica cites

no case in which the refusal of a nother’s demand , without more
, has been held to

constitute a demand

. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Express

Scripts’ letter was not a “ claim ” under the insurance policy with Starr. 1

AFFIRMED

.

1 As we affirm based on the meaning of “claim, ” we do not address the parties’ arguments regarding whether there was a “security failure” or Starr’s a lternative grounds for affirma nce.