N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT AQUARIUS W ELL DRILLING INC .; R AY W ILLIAM SON; SHAR ON W ILLIAM SON, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. AM E R IC AN STATES INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-15040 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-00971-M C EC M K
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 M o rrison C . Engla

nd, Jr., C hie f Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 11, 2015 * * San Franc isc o C a lifornia 

# FIL E D
FEB 23 2015 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : SC HR OEDER and SILVER

M AN, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd HUC K, Se nior Distric t Judge
. *** C a lifornia c orporation Aqua

rius W e ll Drilling, Inc
. (“ Aqua rius” ), a long with its solesha

re holde rs R a

y and Sha ron W illia

m son (c o lle c tive ly

“ Appe lla nts” ),
a ppe a l the dism issa l of the ir c la im s a ga inst Am e ric an State s Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Appe lle e ” ) for its a lle ge d fa ilure to de fe nd Aqua

rius a g a inst a

third-pa rty la wsuit. B e c a use Appe l le e ha d no duty to de fe nd, the distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Appe l la nts’ c la im s unde r Fe de ra l R u le of C ivil Proc e d

ure 12(b)(6). Se e Gray

v . Zuric h Ins. C

o . , 65 C a l. 2d 263, 275 & n.15 (1966). Appe lla nts’ polic y

obliga te d Appe lle e to de fe nd a ga inst c la i m s for “prope rty dam a ge ” c a

use d by an “ oc c urre nc e ,” whic h is de fine d a s a n “ a c c ide nt.” The
ne glige nc e c la im

a ga inst Aqua

rius a lle ge d tha

t Aqua rius pe rform e d a

n ina de quate
we ll te st a

nd the re fore m isre pre se nte d the c ondition of the we l l. All of Aqua

rius’ s
a lle ge d c o nduc t wa s inte ntiona l . Unde r C a lifornia la w, inte ntiona l a c ts a

re not

“ a c c ide nts” unle s s “ som e a dditional, unfore se e n, une xpe c te d , a nd indep e nde nt ha ppe ning” oc c urs whic h c a use s the dam a ge . Me rc e d Mutual Ins. C o. v . Me nde

z , 213 C a l. App. 3d 41, 50 (C t . App. 1989). The a lle gations a ga inst Aqua rius fa ile d to indic at e any

suc h ha p pe ning c a

use d the c la im e d

dam a ge .

*** The Honora

ble Pa ul C . Huc k, Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for Southe rn Florida , sitting by de signa tion. 2Tha

t Appe lla nts did not subje c tive ly

inte n d to be ne g lige nt is irre le va nt, sinc e Appe lla

nts’ c onduc t in te sting thewe ll a nd re porting there sults wa s de libe rat e . Se eDe lgado v . Inte rins. Ex c hange of Auto. C

lub of S. C

al. , 47 C a l. 4th 302, 311 (2009); FireIns. Ex c h angev . Supe rior C t. , 181 C a l. App. 4th 388, 393 (C t. App. 2010) (“ The insure d’ s subje c tive inte nt is irre le v ant.” ). The ina c c urate
re port wa s not a

fortuitous e ve nt, but a

dire c t a nd na tura l c o nse que nc e of the we ll te st. Se e Ray

v . Valle y Forge Ins. C o . , 77 C a l. App. 4th 1039 (C t. App. 1999) (holding no ac c ide nt whe re roofe r ne glige ntly re c om m e nde d unsuita

ble m at e ria ls be c a use the re c om

m e ndation wa s inte ntiona l e ve n if roofe r did not inte nd to
c onve y ba d a dvic e nor inte nd the re sulting c onse que nc e s); s e ealso Me rc e d , 213 C a l. App. 3d a

t 50 (noting ac c ide nt re quire s tha t both them e a

n s and c onse que nc e s be involunta

ry , une xpe c t e d, unusua l, a nd unfore se e n). M ore ove r, the a lle gations of ne glige nt m isre p re se ntation c re ate d no possibility

of c ove ra ge . C a lifornia

la w pre c lude s insura

n c e c ove ra ge for willful wrongdoing such a s fra

ud, a nd tre ats ne g lige nt m isre pre se ntation a s a subspe c ie s of fra ud. Se eDyk

s tra v . Fore most Ins. C

o. , 14 C a l. App. 4th 361, 366 (Ct. App. 1993). B e c a

use ne ithe r c la im

pre se nts a

pote ntia lly

c ove re d “ oc c urre nc e ” within the m e aning of Appe lla

nts’ polic y , Appe lle e ha d

no duty to de fe nd.

3In the a bse nc e of a

duty to de fe nd, de riva

tive c la im s pre m ise d on the a lle ge d bre a c h of tha

t duty fa il. Se eW

alle r v . Truc k

Ins. Ex c h ange

, Inc
. , 11 C a l . 4th 1, 36 (1995). The distric t c ourt the re fore did not err by dism issing Appe lla

nts’ de rivative c la im s . AFFIRM E D
.

4