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 INC OR

NIXDOR

F INC .; ALLIANZ GLOB AL R ISKS US INSUR A NC E C OM PANY, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. DISC OVER

PR OPER TY & C ASUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-56202 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-02772-GAFFFM
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Gary A. Fe e ss, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M ay

8, 2015 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. This insura

nc e c a s e arise s out of a dispute ove r whe the r an insure d ve hic le
wa s in “use ” whe n the insure d’ s e m p loy e e got out of the

ve hic le , a ssa

ulte d a 

# F IL ED
MAY19 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).pe de stria

n re nde ring him

unc onsc ious, a

nd the n dra gge d him

to the side of the roa d be fore fle e ing the sc e ne of the a lte rc ation. The distric t c ourt he ld it wa s not a nd dism isse d the suit with pre judic e unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm
. Disc ove r Prope rty

and C a sua lty

Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Disc ove r” ) provide d
a uto insura nc e c o v e ra ge for W inc or Nixdorf, Inc . (“ W inc or” ) and its e m ploy e e s, inc l uding R obe rt Ka

ne (“ Kane ” ). Allia

nz Globa l R isks US Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Allia n z ” ) provide d c om

m e rc ia l ge ne ra l lia

bility c o ve ra ge for W inc or. On M ay 21, 2009, Ka

ne wa s driving in the

se rvic e of his e m

ploy e r whe n he c am e to a
c ontrolle d inte rse c tion in downtown Sa n Franc isc o. Although the tra ffic light wa s gre e n for Ka

ne , a pe de s tria n, C am e ron R odrigue z (“ R odrigue z ” ), c rosse d in front of his c ar and c a

u se d him to stop. R

odrigue z and Ka

ne tra de d ve rba l insults a

t whic h point Rodrigue z gave Ka ne “ the bird.” Ka

ne the n got out of his c ar and punc he d R odrigue z , knoc king him to the ground. Ka

ne re turne d to his work
ve hic le , but ha d se c ond thoughts be c a use he “ fe l t ba d ” and did not wa nt to “ just le ave this guy

. . . la y ing in the stre e t.” Ka

ne thus pic ke d up the unc o nsc ious R odrigue z by

the arm pits a nd m ove d him to the side of the roa d whe re Ka ne droppe d him

in the gutte r, c a

using him to hit his he a d. Ka

ne the n drove away . R odrigue z susta ine d a

broke n e y e soc ke t a

nd a fra c ture to the ba c k of his he a d. 2Kane wa s c rim ina lly c onvic t e d of fe lony

a ssa ult a nd ba tte ry , a n d R odrigue z
a lso se ttle d a

c i vil la wsuit a ga inst Ka

ne and W inc or for $1,250,000. Wi nc or te nde re d to Disc o ve r de fe nse of the c om pa ny in the c ivil la

wsuit, but Disc ove r
re fuse d. Allia

n z de fe nde d W inc or unde r a re se rvation of rights. Wi nc or and Allia nz now sue Disc ove r ba se d on the a uto-insure r’ s re fusa l to de fe nd W inc or. Disc ove r did not owea

duty to de fe n d W inc or a ga inst R odrigue z ’ s c ivil suit whe re the c la im s a

rose out of Ka

ne ’ s a ssa ult a nd subse que n t dra gging of R odrigue z to the side of the roa d, rathe r tha n out of the“ use ” of the ve h ic l e . Se e C a l. Ins. C ode § 11580.06(g) (de fining “use ” ); C al. Auto. Ins. C

o. v . Hogan , 112 C a l. App. 4th 1292, 1295, 1298-301 (2003); s e e also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C o. v . Fe rnande

z , 767 F.2d 1299, 1302 (9th C ir. 1985). TheC a lifornia Supre m e C ourt in State

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. v . Partridge , 10 C a l. 3d 94, 100-01 (1973),

“ le ft ope n” the “ e x a c t

nature of the re quire d c a

usa l c onne c tion” to show a ve hic l e
wa s in “use ” for purpose s of the insura nc e c ode , but sinc e the n the m a jority of C a lifornia C ourts of Appe a l have he l d tha t the “ pre dom inat ing c a

use /substa

ntia l fa c t or te st” should a

pply
. Am. N

at’l Prop. &

C as. C o. v . J ulie R. , 76 C a l . App. 4th 134, 139-40 (1999); se e State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. v . Grisham , 122 C a l. App. 4th 563, 566-67 (2004); Hogan , 112 C a l . App. 4th a t 1298. Thedistric t c ourt prope rly he ld “ the re is no c a

usa l c onne c tion—

pre dom inating, substa

ntia l, m inim a l, 3or othe rwise

— be twe e n the use of the Ve hic l e and the injurie s R odrigue z susta ine d whe n be ing m ove d off the stre e t.” At m ost, the c a r provide d

tra nsporta tion to the situs of the

tort, but re m a ine d a

n innoc e nt by sta

nde r the re a fte r. S

e e , e .g. , Hogan , 112 C a l. App. 4th a

t 1299-300; c

f. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. v . Dav is , 937 F.2d 1415, 1420-21 (9th C ir. 1991) (finding c ar wa s in “use ” to fa c ilita te a highwa y shooting). W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt a nd fa il to se e how Ka

n e ’ s m o m e nta

ry re e ntry into theve hic le be fore having se c ond thoughts would dic tate a diffe re nt outc om e from

the num e rous othe r c a se s tha t ha ve he ld sim ila

r roa d ra ge inc ide nts to ha ve no c a usa l link to the

ve hic le
. Se e

, e .g. , Fe rnande

z , 767 F.2d a

t 1302; Hogan , 112 C a l. App. 4th a t 1300-01. M ore ove r, e ve n if Ka ne ha d be e n
atte m pting to move R odrigue z out of the ve hic le ’ s pa th in orde r to drive away , this fa c t a lone would not c ha

nge the outc om e . The re fore , we hold the re wa s “ no possibility

of c ove ra ge , [an d

thus] no duty to de fe n d.” State Farm Fire

& C as. C o.
v . Supe r. C

t. , 191 C a l . App. 3d 74, 77 (1987). Abse nt a duty to de fe nd, Disc ove r did not bre a c h its c ontra c t with W inc or, a nd a ll of the othe r c la im s a sse rte d by W inc or and Allia

nz fa il a s a

re s ult. B e c a use Disc ove r ha d no duty to de fe nd W inc or, we ne e d not re a c h the
c olla te ra l e s toppe l issue
. 4AFFIRM E D.

5