Case Name: VIERRAMOORE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-15
Citations: 607 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 13-15981
Parties: VIERRAMOORE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 607
Pages: 749–750

Head Matter:
VIERRAMOORE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
No. 13-15981.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 2015.
Filed June 15, 2015.
Gregory L. Maxim, Thomas G. Trost, Sproul Trost, Roseville, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellant.
John E. Barry, Richard A. Simpson, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, John H. Feeney, Esquire, Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this ease is suitable for.decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
VierraMoore, Inc., appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Company in VierraMoore's diversity action alleging that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and indemnify as required in the professional liability policy it issued to VierraMoore. VierraMoore also alleges that Continental Casualty acted in bad faith. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We agree with the district court that the bond exclusion, which excluded coverage of any claim "based upon, directly or indirectly arising out of, or in any way involving the failure to effect or maintain any insurance or bond," is broad, unambiguous, and enforceable. All of the claims asserted against VierraMoore in the underlying action arose out of VierraMoore's failure to ensure that surety bonds remained effective until construction was complete. Because of the bond exclusion, there was no potential for coverage under the professional liability policy, and the insurance company had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The district court properly granted summary judgment on all of Vier-raMoore's claims in favor of Continental Casualty. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1034 (9th Cir.2008).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.