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

B ARB AR

A KELLER

ER , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ALLIED PR OPER TY AND C ASUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, Errone ously Sue d As Allie d Prope rty

and C a sua lty Insura n c e C om pa ny , a Nationwide C om pa ny , De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-56653 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-00078-DDP-JEM
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 De a n D. Pre ge rson, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

April 3, 2017 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
APR 20 2017 M O LLYC. 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).B e fore : B EA a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C HHAB R IA, *** Distric t Judge
. B arbara Ke lle re r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Allie d Prope rty

and C a sua lty

Insura n c e C o m p any (“ Allie d” ). Allie d de c line d to de fe nd Ke lle re r a ga inst a c la im brought by

a da y la b ore r, Pe dro Guz m an, who sue d Ke lle re r a fte r he a lle ge dly susta i ne d a

n injury while working on Ke lle re r’ s prope rty . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we
a ffirm
. 1. Unde r C a lifornia

la w, whe n a

n insure d se e ks de c la

ra tory re lie f tha t a n insure r owe s he r a

duty to de fe nd, “ the insure d m u st prove the e xiste nc e of a pote ntia l for c ove ra ge , while the insure r m ust e sta blish thea

bse n c e of a

ny suc h pote ntia l .” Montrose C

he m. C orp. v . Supe r. C

t. , 861 P.2d 1153, 1161 (C a l. 1993) (e m pha sis om itte d). Whe the r Guz m a n’ s c la im a ga inst Ke lle re r c re a te d a “ pote ntia l for c o ve ra ge ”

— and thus a duty to de fe nd Ke lle re r a ga inst Guzm an’ s c la im

— “ is a que stion whic h is not judge d on the ba sis of hindsight but ra the r from a l l of the inform a t ion a

va ila ble to the insure r at the tim e of the te nde r of the de fe nse . ” B & E C onv ale sc e nt C tr. v . State C

omp. Ins. Fund

, 9 C a l. R ptr. 2d 894, 903 (C t. App. 1992). Ke lle re r did not subm it inform a tion to Allie d re ga rding Ke lle re r’ s a lle ge d

* * * The Honora

ble Vinc e G. C hha

bria , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion. 2pe rsona l c a sh pa ym e nts to Guz

m an for the work Ke l le re r c la im s Guz m an did for he r until m ore tha

n two y e ars a fte r Allie d ha d de c line d to de fe n d Ke lle re r a ga inst Guz m an’ s c la im
. 1 The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not err whe n it re fuse d to
c onside r the late r-de ve l ope d inform a tion c onc e rning Ke lle re r’ s a lle g e d c a sh pa ym e nts to Guz

m an. Id. 2. The distric t c ourt a lso did not err in c o nc luding tha t Guz m an ’ s c la im

fe ll within the“ busine ss pursuits” e xc lusion in Allie d’ s insura n c e polic ie s. 2 B a se d on the i nform a tion a

va ila ble to Allie d at the tim e it de nie d c ove ra g e
— t hat Guz m an

1 In support of he r m o tion for sum m ary judgm e nt, Ke l le re r file d de c la ra tions in August a

nd Se pte m

be r of 2015, in whic h she sta te d tha t she pe rsona lly

pa id Guz m an in c a sh on som e da y s for the work Ke lle re r c la im s Guz m an pe rform e d for he r. Ke lle re r a lso submitte d a c a le nda r that inc lude d

a note re ga rding a $20 c a sh pa ym e nt to Guzm a

n on the date of Guz m an’ s a l le ge d injury
. The distric t c ourt note d tha t the c a le nda

r subm itte d by

Ke lle re r a

ppe are d to be the e xa c t sa m e c a le nda r subm itte d to Allie d during Guzm a n’ s proc e e dings be fore the W orke rs’ C om pe nsation Appe a ls B oa

rd, e xc e pt for the a dde d note re ga rding thea lle g e d $20 c a sh pa ym e nt. 2 Ke lle re r’ s hom e owne rs insura nc e polic y , whic h

she purc ha se d through Allie d, inc lude d the following “ busine ss pursuits” e xc lusion: “ C ove ra g e s E [Pe rsona l Lia

bility ] and F [M e d ic a l Paym e n ts to Othe rs] do not a pply to . . . ‘ [b] odily injury ’ or ‘ prope rty

dam a ge ’ arising out of or in c onne c tion with a
‘ b usine ss’ c onduc te d from an ‘ insure d loc at ion’ or e nga ge d in by an ‘ insure d’ , whe the r or not the ‘ busine s s’ is owne d or ope ra te d by an ‘ insure d’ or e m

p loy s a n ‘ i nsure d.’ ” Ke lle re r’ s um

bre lla lia bility insura nc e polic y , a lso purc ha se d through Allie d, c onta ine d the following provision: “The c ove ra ge s provide d by this polic y do not a p ply to . . . ‘ [b] odily

injury ’ , ‘ pe rsona l injury ’ or ‘ prope rty dam a ge ’ arising out of or in c onne c tion with a ‘ busine ss’ e nga ge d in by an ‘ insure d.’ ” 3wa s pa id by

the Our C hildre n The ir Future Founda t ion (the “ Founda

tion” ), and tha

t Ke lle re r hire d Guz m a

n to pre pa re Ke lle re r’ s prope rty

for use by

the Founda tion— no pote ntia l for c ove ra ge e xiste d be c a use Guz m an’ s c la im

arose “ out of or in c onne c tion with a ‘ busine ss’ c onduc te d from an ‘ insure d loc a tion’ or
e nga ge d in by

an ‘ insure d’ [.] ” Guz m an’ s sta

te m e nt to Allie d tha

t he “ think[s] ” he m a d e “ s om e whe re
around [the ] am ount” of $3,000, “m ore or le ss,” e ve n though the c he c k s from

the Founda tion tota le d only

$1,480, did not cre a te a

tria ble issue of fa c t a s to whe the r Guz m an wa s hire d

by Ke lle re r, ra the r tha

n the Founda

tion. Eve n if Guz m an
re c e ive d a dditiona l pa

ym e nts be y ond wha

t wa s doc um e nte d by

the c opie s of Founda tion c h e c ks Ke lle re r subm itte d to Allie d, Ke lle re r told Allie d tha t she pa id Guz m an from

the Founda

tion, a nd did not te ll Allie d tha

t she pe rsona lly

pa id Guz m an for a

ny se rvic e s . Allie d e sta

blishe d the a

bse nc e of a

ny pote ntia l for
c ove ra ge due to the “ busine s s pursuits”e xc lusion in the insura n c e polic ie s. The re fore , the distric t c ourt prope rly grante d Allie d ’ s m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt. Se eMontrose , 861 P.2d a t 1157. 3. Allie d did not c onc e de the e xiste nc e of a ny tria ble issue s of fa c t tha

t would pre c lude sum

m a ry judgm e nt. In its opposition to Ke lle re r’ s m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt, Allie d a

rgue d tha t if the distric t c ourt found tria b le issue s of
4fa c t

with re ga rd to Allie d’ s duty

to de fe nd— and thus de n ie d Allie d’ s m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt—

the distric t c o urt c ould not gra nt Ke lle re r’ s m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt due to thosetria ble issue s of fa c t . Allie d’ s a rgum e nt in the
a lte rna tive doe s not c onc e d e the e xiste nc e of a ny tria ble issue s of fa c t. AFFIRM E D.

5