N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HENR Y JAM ES ANDER SON, individually

and a s Truste e of the 2004 He nry Ja m e s Ande rson R e v oc a

ble Trust; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. C ER TAIN UNDER

W RITER S AT LLOYD’ S UNDER

POLIC Y NO. B 0146LDUSA0701030, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 12-17386 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-05760-R S 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 R ic ha rd Se e borg, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Submitte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2015 San Franc isc o C a lifornia B e fore : PAEZ a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s a

nd M ORRIS, ** Distric t Judge .



# F IL ED APR 08 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 Honora

ble B rian M . M o rris, Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theDistric t of M onta na , sitting by

de signa tion.He nry

Ande rson a

nd othe r pla i ntiffs, c olle c tive ly “ Ande rson,” we re a ssigne d e Planning’ s rights aga inst B rit UW Lim ite d (“ B rit” ). Ande rson a lle ge s tha t B rit bre a c he d its c ontra c t with e Pla nning a nd its duty

of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling unde r C a lifornia

la w by re fusing to de fe nd e Pla nning a nd to se ttle Ande rson’ s c la im s. Thedistric t c ourt dismisse d Ande rson’ s first a m e nde d c om

pla int with pre j udic e . Ande rson a

ppe a ls. W e re vie w de novo, Lac e y v . Maric opa C

nty . , 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th C ir. 2012) (e n ba nc ), and a ffirm . 1. In this diversity

suit, wea

pply C a lifornia

la w. To pre va il on his c la im for bre a c h of theduty

to de fe nd, Ande rson ne e d not provec ove ra ge e x iste d. Inste a d, Ande rson m

ust proveonly

“ the possibility

of c o ve ra ge at

the tim e the c la i m

is ra ise d.” F

ood Pro Int’l, Inc . v . Farme rs Ins. Ex c h ., 169 C a l. App. 4th 976, 992 (2008). 2. The distric t c ourt de te rm ine d tha t no c ove ra ge e xiste d, be c a use the polic y ’ s “ Partia l Profe ssiona l Se rvic e s Exc lusion”ba rre d a ll of Ande rson’ s c la im s . This e xc l usion provide d tha t B rit wa s not lia

ble for any

c l a im unde r the polic y

“ for any a c t , e rror or om i ssion in c onne c tion with the pe rform anc e of a

ny profe ssiona l se rvic e s by

or on be ha l f of [e Planning] for the be ne fit of a ny othe r e ntity

or pe rson.” Ande rson a l le ge d in his origina l c om pla int tha t e Planning ha d

fa ile d to supe rvise prope rly

its e m p loy e e s a nd ha d fa ile d

to a udit its own file s to de te rm ine whe the r its e m

ploy e e s we re se lling produc ts not a uthoriz e d by e Planning.3. Ande rson a rgue s tha t theprofe ssiona l se rvic e s polic y e xc lusion should not a pply he re . In support of his a

rgum e nt, Ande rson c i te s num e rous c a se s whe re c ourts ha ve de te rm ine d tha

t c e rta in a c t s did not c onstitute “profe ssiona l a c ts” e ve n if the a c t s ha d be e n c om

m i tte d by a profe ssiona l. B rit distinguishe s Ande rson’ s c a se s a s not dispositive

he re , be c a

use the polic y

e x c l usion in this c a se c onta ins “ in c onne c tion with”la

ngua ge in thepolic y

e xc lusion. W e a gre e . The C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a ls ha s c onstrue d profe ssiona l se rvic e s polic y e xc lusions na

rrowly . Food Pro , 169 C a l. App. 4th a t 991; N . C ountie s Eng’g, Inc . v . State

Farm Ge n. Ins. C o. , 224 C a l . App. 4th 902 (2014). The “ in c onne c tion with”la

ngua ge ne ve rthe le ss broa de n s thee xc lusion bey ond theprofe ssiona l se rvic e s the m se lve s. 4. B rit a rgue s tha t e Planning’ s fa ilure to supe rvise and fa ilure to a udit fa ll within theprofe ssiona l se rvic e s polic y e xc lusion. e Planning provide d profe ssiona l se rvic e s re late d t o se l ling se c uritie s. e Planning’ s e m ploy e e s sold se c uritie s, inc l uding se c urity

produc t s not a

uthoriz e d by

e Pla nning. e Planning fa ile d to supe rvise its e m

p l oy e e s prope rly

to e nsure no una

uthoriz e d se c uritie s we re be ing sold. e Planning a lso fa ile d to a udit these c uritie s sold by its e m ploy e e s to e nsure that no una uthoriz e d se c uritie s ha d be e n sold. The se om issions fall within the e xc lusion for a c t ions done“ in c onne c tion with”profe ssiona l se rvic e s. 5. W e re je c t Ande rson’ s re m a ining c onte ntions on a ppe a l. W e a ffirm

the distric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of thec om pla i nt.AFFIRM E D .