Case Name: U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-25
Citations: 556 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 12-56164
Parties: U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 556
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
U.S. SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
No. 12-56164.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 13, 2014.
Filed Feb. 25, 2014.
Justin Taylor Barkowski, Esquire, Garry L. Montanari, Esquire, Michaelis Mon- tanari & Johnson, PC, Westlake Village, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.
John R. Hanson, Jeffrey A. Worthe, Worthe, Hanson & Worthe, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Ap-pellee.
Before: FARRIS, N.R. SMITH, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The district court correctly granted summary judgment to XL Specialty Insurance Co. because exclusion 2(g) of the XL insurance policy applies to the aircraft accident here. Exclusion 2(g) excludes from coverage bodily injury or property damage "arising out of the . use . of any aircraft . operated by . any insured." Thus, the exclusion applies here if, at the time of the accident, the aircraft was operated by the insured, Championship Aviation, Inc. (CAI).
U.S. Specialty Insurance Co. obtained a default judgment against CAI based in part on U.S. Specialty's allegation that the aircraft was operated by CAI at the time of the accident. In its underlying action against CAI, U.S. Specialty alleged that "[a]t all times herein relevant, the Aircraft was . operated by defendant ] CAI." It then reincorporated that allegation throughout its complaint. Having obtained the default judgment it seeks to enforce in this action based in part on the allegation that CAI did operate the aircraft, U.S. Specialty cannot now claim that CAI did not operate the aircraft in order to avoid the application of- exclusion 2(g). See Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782-83 (9th Cir.2001). That remains true even though U.S. Specialty took its original position in a different action. Id.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.