Case Name: UNDERWOOD FRUIT AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a Washington Limited Partnership; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-09
Citations: 334 F. App'x 103
Docket Number: No. 08-35745
Parties: UNDERWOOD FRUIT AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a Washington Limited Partnership; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 103–103

Head Matter:
UNDERWOOD FRUIT AND WAREHOUSE COMPANY, a Washington Limited Partnership; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS INSURANCE CO., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-35745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 7, 2009.
Filed Oct. 9, 2009.
J. Jay Carroll, Velikanje Halverson P.C., Yakima, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Marianne M. Ghim, Margaret M. Van Valkenburg, Bullivant Houser Bailey, Portland, OR, Deborah L. Carstens, Jerret E. Sale, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: D.W. NELSON, SILVERMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff Underwood Fruit and Warehouse Company and Plaintiff Washington Fruit and Produce Company appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the summary judgment decision de novo, E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Encana Corp., 503 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
The district court correctly held that Underwood Fruit suffered a single occurrence of employee dishonesty under its insurance policy. See Valley Furniture & Interiors, Inc. v. Trans. Ins. Co., 107 Wash.App. 104, 26 P.3d 952, 955 (2001). Schemes I and II were nearly identical and Underwood Fruit presented no evidence that it suffered a loss as a result of Scheme III.
Further, the district court properly granted summary judgment as to Washington Fruit's claims. Washington Fruit's insurance policy expressly and unambiguously limits recovery to losses sustained during the policy period and none of Washington Fruit's losses occurred during that time. See Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wash.2d 567, 964 P.2d 1173, 1178 (1998).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.