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

ANC E C OM PANY, Pla i ntiff-c ounte rde fe nda nt-Appe lle e , v. PATR IC K YAGER ; JAVIER LOPEZ, De fe nda nts-c o unte rc la im ants-Appe lla

nts,
v. GIR ARD INSUR

A NC E C OM PANY; IR

A LEE GIR A RD; M AR

Y ANN GIR

ARD, Third-pa rty -de fe n da

nts. No. 18-17350

D.C . No. 4:16-c v-00192-JAS
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jam e s Ala

n Soto, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

5, 2020 ** Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED
AUG 14 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 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.

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : TASHIM A, W
. FLETC HER , a nd R A W LINSON, C irc u it Judge s. This a ppe a l a rise s from an insura nc e c ove ra ge dispute . Alonso Pa stor obta ine d c om

m e rc ia l a uto insura nc e c ove ra ge with Appe l le e W ilshire Insura nc e C om pa ny (W ilshire ). Appe lla

nts Pa tric k Ya ge r and Ja

vie r Lope z we re involve d in
a m otor ve hic le a c c ide nt during whic h Ya ge r susta ine d injurie s. The va n owne d
and drive n by

Lope zwa s a dde d a s a

c ove re d a

uto unde r Pa stor’ s polic y , but Lope z
wa s not a dde d a s a

nam e d insure d. Following the

a c c ide nt, Ya ge r initia

te d a sta te la wsuit a ga inst Lope zand Pa stor. M onths a fte r W ilshire obta ine d c ounse l on Lope z ’ s be ha lf, W ilshire issue d
a re s e rvat ion of rights on the ba sis tha t Lope z wa s not c ove re d unde r the polic y . The sta te a c tion wa s dismisse d a s to Pa stor, a nd Lope z a ssigne d his rights aga inst W ilshire to Ya ge r, with thepa ir a gre e ing to a stipula te d judgm e nt of $1.5 million. W ilshire initia

t e d the unde rly ing de c la

rat ory a c tion in fe de ra l c o urt, se e king
a de c la rat ion tha t the insura

nc e c om pa ny ha d no duty to inde m

nify Lope z unde r the i nsura nc e polic y . Ya ge r and Lope za

p pe a l the distric t c o urt’ s grant of sum m ary judgm e nt in favor of W i lshire . W e re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s orde r granting sum m ary judgm e nt denov o . S

e e Arc ev . Douglas , 793 F.3d 968, 975-76 (9th C ir. 2015).

21. The distric t c ourt prope rly e nte re d judgm e nt in fa

vor of W ilshire , a s Lope z wa s not c ove re d unde r the polic y . The polic y de fine d “ i nsure d” a s Pa stor

“ for any c ove re d a

uto” and “ [a ] ny one e lse while using with [Pa stor’ s] pe rm ission a
c ove re d a uto . . . own[e d] , hire [d] or borrow[e d] e x c e pt [t] he owne r or any one e lse from whom [Pa s tor] hire [d] or borrow[e d] a c ove re d a

uto.” Although the

ve hic le be ing ope rate d by Lope z wa s insure d , Lope z wa s not. Furthe r, a s the owne r of the
ve hic le be ing ope rate d, Lope z did not fit within the de finition of a

pe rm issive drive r. 2. W ilshire wa s not e stoppe d from ra ising c ove ra ge de fe nse s, nor did W ilshire wa ive any

c o ve ra ge de fe nse s. W a ive r re q uire s a c le ar e xpre ssion of inte nt to re linquish a

known right. Se ePrie to v . Paul Re v e re LifeIns. C o. , 354 F.3d 1005, 1013 n.12 (9th C i r. 2004) (c iting Ariz ona la w); se ealso S

e rv ic e s Holding C

o., Inc . v . Transame ric a Oc c ide n tal Life Ins. C o. , 883 P.2d 435, 443 (Ariz
. C t. App. 1994). M o re ve r, W ilshire would only be e stoppe d from

a sse rting
c ove ra ge de fe nse s if a

n insure d de trim e nta lly

re l ie d on W ilshire ’ s a c tions. Se e Se rv ic e s Holding. , 883 P.2d a

t 443. B e c a

use Lope z produc e d

no e vide nc e of W ilshire ’ s inte ntiona l re linquishme nt of its right to de ny c ove ra ge , or of Lope z ’ s de trim e nta l re lia

nc e on a ny a c t ion ta

ke n by W ilshire , no m at e ria l issue of fa c t wa s

3ra ise d to pre c lude sum m ary judgm e nt. Se ePe nn-Am. Ins. C o. v . Sanc he

z , 202 P.3d 472, 476 (Ariz . C t. App. 2008) (a rtic ulating thesum

m ary judgm e nt sta

nda rd). 3. Fina lly , be c a

u se Lope z wa s not c ove re d unde r the W ilshire polic y , his
c la im s for ba d

fa ith a nd bre a c h of the c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a l ing a

re not via ble
. Se e De

se rt Ridge

Re sort LLC v . Oc c ide ntal Fire

& C as. C o. of N C , 141 F. Supp. 3d 962, 972-73 (D. Ariz . 2015). AFFIRM E D.

4