Case Name: POLO TOWERS MASTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-19
Citations: 185 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 04-16623
Parties: POLO TOWERS MASTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
POLO TOWERS MASTER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-16623.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 14, 2006.
Filed June 19, 2006.
Michael W. Caspino, Esq., Brady, Vorwerck, Ryder & Cappino, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Jack C. Cherry, Esq., Alverson Taylor Mortensen Nelson & Sanders, Las Vegas, NV, Joyce C. Wang, Carlson Calladme & Peterson, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, GRABER, Circuit Judge, and DUFFY, District Judge.
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Polo Towers Master Owners Association, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company. On de novo review, Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2002), we hold that Plaintiffs loss is excluded from coverage under the "contamination" provision of the insurance policy. That provision is not ambiguous, see United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 120 Nev. 678, 99 P.3d 1153, 1157 (2004) (holding that the courts may not rewrite unambiguous insurance contract provisions), and it includes the high level of legionella bacteria in the water. The loss did not result directly from "covered" physical damage because the "faulty workmanship" exclusion applies.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.