N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EM PLOYER S INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY OF WAUSAU,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. LEXINGTON INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-56454 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-00810-VAP-DTB
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 V irginia A. Phillips, C hie f Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d and Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, B EA, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Em ploy e rs Insura

n c e C om pa ny of W a usa u (W a usa u) a p pe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s e ntry

of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Le xington Insura

n c e C om p any 

# FIL ED D EC 16 2016 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.(Le xington) in this e quita ble c ontribution ac tion. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd a ffirm
. The a c c ide nt re port pre pa re d by the C a lifornia

De pa rtm e nt of Industrial R e lations Division of Oc c upationa l He a lth is a dm issiblee vide n c e , se e Fe d. R
. Evid. 803(8); C a l. La

bor C ode § 6313(a ), and the re fore the distric t c ourt did not err in c o nside ring it, se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 56(c ). The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t Le xington ha d no duty

to inde m nify the insure d. The re is no ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r

“ e a rth m ove m e nt” at le a st “ c ontribute d to” or “ a ggravate d” the bodily injurie s in issue , a nd the Le xington policy ’ s subside nc e e xc l usion the re fore a pplie s. Se e id. 56(c )(1); id. 56(e )(2). The distric t c ourt did not err in c o nc luding tha t the
c onc urre nt c a

usation doc trine is ina

pplic a ble be c a use W a usa u fa ile d to a d duc e any e vide nc e of “ t

wo ne glige nt a c ts or om issions of the insure d, one of whic h, inde pe nde ntly

of the e xc lude d c a

use , re n de rs the insure d lia ble for the re sulting injurie s.” Daggs v . Fore most Ins. C o. , 148 C a l. App. 3d 726, 730 (1983). The distric t c ourt did not err in c onc luding tha t Le xington ha d no duty

to de fe nd the insure d. The Le xington policy ’ s e xc e ss-only othe r-insura

nc e provision
wa s na rrowly foc use d on risks a ssoc iate d with a uto a c c ide nts, whic h we re ge ne ra lly outsidethe sc ope of Le xington’ s C GL polic y , a n d did not c onflic t with
2an othe r-insura nc e provision in the

W a usa u polic y . The re fore , the provision wa s e nforc e a ble unde r C a lifornia

la w. Hartford C

as. Ins. C o. v . Trav e le rs Inde m. C

o. , 110 C a l. App. 4th 710, 725–27 (2003). In Fe de ral Insuranc e C o. v . Le x ington Insuranc e C

o. , No. 5:11-c v-895 (C .D. C a l. 2011), Le xington a rgue d tha t a broa d
e sc a pe -c la use othe r-insura

nc e provision wa s not e nforc e a ble ; suc h a

n a rgum e nt is not c le arly inc onsiste nt with the one Le xington ra ise s he re , a nd the re fore Le xington is not judic ia l ly e stoppe d from

re lia nc e on its other-insura

nc e provision he re . He ndric k

s & Le w is PLLC

v . C linton , 766 F.3d 991, 1001 (9th C i r. 2014). W a usa u’ s pe nding m otion for judic i a l notic e is GR ANTED IN PAR T a s to the m e m orandum

of points a

nd a uthoritie s a

n d DENIED IN PART in a ll othe r re spe c ts. AFFIRM E D
.

3