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

ZUR IC H AM E R IC AN INSUR ANC E C OM PANY; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. IR ONSHORE SPEC IALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-16950 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-00060-TLN-DB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Troy L. Nunle y , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 14, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM E LLE, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED
APR 16 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.Zuric h Am e ric an Insura nc e C om pa ny (Zuric h ) a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of Ironshore Spe c ia lty Insura nc e C om pa ny (Ironshore ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. The distric t c ourt did not err in holding tha t Ironshore did not ha

ve a duty to de fe nd its insure d s, M atts R oofing, Inc . a nd She rm an Loe hr C ustom Tile W orks, Inc
. , a ga i nst a

ny of the 21 unde rly i ng c onstruc tion-de fe c t la wsuits. Ironshore ’ s polic y e xc lude d c o ve ra ge for prope rty dam a ge from

work pe rform e d

by its insure d prior to polic y

inc e ption (theExc lusion Provision), a nd the re is no dispute

tha t
e a c h of the 21 c o m

pla ints a lle ge d prope rty

dam a ge from

work pe rform e d by

the insure ds y e ars be fore the polic y pe riod be ga

n. Although Ironshore ’ s polic y inc l ude d a

n e xc e ption to the

Exc lusion Provision for a ny prope rty dam a ge tha

t “ is sudde n and a c c ide nta l a

nd ta ke s pla c e within thepolic y pe riod,” Zuric h fa i le d to
ra ise a ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t tha t a ny prope rty dam a ge a lle ge d in the21
c om pla i nts wa s sudde n a

nd a c c ide nta l. Se e Gunde rson v . Fire Ins. Ex c h. , 37 C a l. App. 4th 1106, 1114 (1995). The re fore , Zuric h fa ile d to c arry its burde n of
m aking a prim a fa c i e showing tha

t the e xc e ption to the Exc lusion Provision
a pplie d. Se e Ay din C

orp. v . First State Ins. C

o. , 18 C a l.4th 1183, 1188, 1194 (1998). B e c a

use Zuric h fa ile d

to show a

ny pote ntia l for c ove ra ge unde r

2Ironshore ’ s polic y , Ironshore ha d no duty to de fe nd. La J

olla Be ac h & Te nnis C lub, Inc . v . Indus. Inde m. C o . , 9 C a l. 4th 27, 39–40 (1994). Zuric h’ s re m a ining a

rgum e nts a lso fa il. Any

e rror by the distric t c ourt in
re que s ting supplem e nta l e vide nc e re ga rding whe n the e sc row for c e rta in sa le s
c lose d wa s ha

rm le ss, be c a

use suc h e vide nc e wa s not re le va n t to theque stion whe the r Ironshore ha d a

duty to de fe nd. Nor did the

distric t c ourt e rr in holding that Ironshore ’ s insura

nc e polic y

is e nforc e a

ble unde r C a lifornia

la w. Ironshore ’ s polic y is not a m biguous re ga

rding the trigge r of c ove ra ge , unlikethe polic y at issue in P e nnsy lv ania Ge ne ral Insuranc e C o. v . Ame r ic an Safe ty

Inde mnity

C o. , 185 C a l. App. 4th 1515 (2010), but c le arly provide s tha

t prope rty dam a ge c a

use d by work “pe rform e d prior to polic y inc e ption” is e x c lude d from c ove ra g e . AFFIRM E D.

3