N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
THE B UR LINGTON INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GER M AN M OTOR S C ORPOR ATION; FEDER ATED M UTUAL INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 18-15835

D.C . No. 4:17-c v-04734-YGR
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 Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 12, 2019 ** Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B ENNETT, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. The B urlington Insura

nc e C om pa ny (“ B urlington” ) doe s not ha ve a duty to de fe nd a n d inde m n ify B ay One Se c urity

(“ B ay One ” ). W e a ffirm the distric t 

# F IL ED DEC 17 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. The re le va

nt fa c t s a re undispute d. Ge rm an M otors C orporat ion (“ Ge rm an M otors” ) hire d B ay

One to provide se c urity

for its B M W

de a le rship in Sa

n Fra nc i sc o. B ay

One purc ha se d a

c om m e rc i a l ge ne ra l lia

bility (“ C GL” ) insura

nc e polic y (“ Polic y ” ) from

B urlington a

t a c ost of $10,307.00 pe

r y e ar. In June 2015, while a B ay One se c urity

gua rd wa s on duty , a

m an broke into Ge rm an M otors’ de a le rship a

nd c a u se d signific a

nt da m a ge to m

ultiple c ars a

nd the de a le rship. Ge rm a n M otors sue d B ay

One in sta

te c ourt for bre a c h of c ontra c t a nd ne glige nc e , and B ay One the n te nde re d the c la im to B urlington. B urlington c o n c e de s tha

t “ a bse nt the e xc lusions, this polic y would c ove r this
c la im .” Howe ve r, B urlington a sse rts tha t the dam a ge c la im e d by

B ay One is
e xc lude d from c o v e ra ge by the Polic y ’ s Profe ssiona l Se rvic e s Exc lusion, whic h
re a d s, “ This insura

nc e doe s not a

pply to ‘ any injury or da m a ge ’ arising out of the
re nde ring of or fa ilure to re nde r any profe ssiona l se rvic e s by

or for y ou.” W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt to B urlington de
novo. Se e Attorne

y s Liab. Prot. Soc ’y

, Inc . v . Ingaldson Fitzge

rald, P.C
. , 838 F.3d 976, 980 (9th C ir. 2016). “ [A] n insure d’ s c l a im

of c ove ra ge for ‘ profe ssiona l
se rvic e s’ m

ust be e va l ua te d in light of a ll the re l e va

nt c irc um sta

nc e s in whic h tha

t
c la im arise s , inc l uding, but not lim ite d to, [1] the te rm ’ s c om m only unde rstood
2m e aning, [2] the ty pe and c ost of the polic y , a nd [3] the nature of the e n te rprise .” Hollingsw orth v . C

o mme rc i al Union Ins. C

o. , 256 C a l . R

ptr. 357, 360 (C t. App. 1989). The Polic y ’ s Profe ssiona l Se rvic e s Exc lusion a pplie s he re . First, B ay

One ’ s se c urity se rvic e s fa ll within the

c om m only unde rstood m e a

n ing of “profe ssiona l
se rvic e s” : “ those ‘ arising out of a voc a tion, c a l ling, oc c upation, or e m p loy m e nt involving spe c i a liz e d knowle dge , la bor, or skill, a

nd the la bor or skill involve d is pre d om ina

ntly m e nta l o r inte lle c tua l, rat he r tha n phy sic a l or m anua l.’ ” Ene rgy Ins. Mut. Ltd. v
. Ac e Am. Ins. C o . , 221 C a l. R

ptr. 3d 711, 719 (C t. App. 2017) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). B a

y One ’ s se rvic e s m e t e a c h c rite rion: the y arose out of
e m ploy m e nt, involve d spe c ia liz e d knowle dge , and we re pre dom ina n tly m e n ta l. Se c ond, the ty

pe of polic y

B urlington issue d B ay

One wa s a

C GL polic y . C GL polic ie s ty

pic a lly do not c ove r profe ssiona l ne g lige nc e , suc h a s a se c urity gua rd’ s ne glige nt fa ilure to wa tc h a vide o m onitor. Id. a t 292. Fina lly , the na t

ure of the se c urity

e n te rprise sugge sts tha

t it is a profe ssiona l
se rvic e . Ge rm an M otors’ a gre e m e nt with B ay One involve d a

n e xc ha nge for
va lue : B ay One provide d se c urity , a nd Ge rm an M otors pa id a n hourly ra te of $45.00 for the se rvic e . Additionally , B a y One ’ s se rvic e s re quire d e m ploy e e s to have spe c ia liz e d knowle dge , tra ining, a nd qua lific a tions. M ore ove r, e a c h gua rd’ s
3individua l dutie s we re prim arily m e n ta l: the re sponsibilitie s inc lude d m onitoring live surve illa

nc e foota g e and “ othe rwise re m a in[ing] vigila nt for a ny signs of suspic ious a c tivity .” Ove ra ll, the nature of B ay One ’ s se c urity

se rvic e s pla c e s the m squa re ly within the

Profe s siona l Se rvic e s Exc lusion. AFFIRM E D
.

4