Case Name: OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-08
Citations: 436 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 10-15957
Parties: OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 436
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Oregon Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-15957.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 13, 2011.
Filed June 8, 2011.
Todd William Baxter, Esquire, Gordon M. Park, Esquire, Scott M. Reddie, McCormick Barstow, LLP, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Paul D. Loreto, Esquire, The Loreto Law Firm, Huntington Beach, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: HUG and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and WATSON, District Judge.
The Honorable Michael H. Watson, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oregon Mutual Insurance Company ("Oregon") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of National General Insurance Company ("National") in this insurance coverage dispute stemming from a dog bite sustained when the claimant approached the dog which was in the back of the insured's parked pickup truck. After Oregon settled legal claims against the insured, it filed suit in federal district court against National seeking equitable contribution, subrogation, indemnity, and declaratory relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1030 (9th Cir.2010), and affirm the district court's ruling.
This case requires us to determine whether the injury sustained as a result of the dog bite arose out of the use of the truck. We hold that it did not. The "term 'use' when applied to a motor vehicle shall only mean operating, maintaining, loading, or unloading a motor vehicle." Cal. Ins. Code § 11580.06(g). The events giving rise to a claim under an automobile insurance policy must arise out of, and be related to, the "use" of the vehicle. See Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Julie R., 76 Cal.App.4th 134, 138, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 119 (1999). The vehicle's operation, movement, maintenance, loading, or unloading must be a substantial factor or predominating cause of the claimant's injury. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grisham, 122 Cal.App.4th 563, 566-68, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 809 (2004). That the vehicle merely served as the situs of the injury is insufficient to find that the injury arose out of the "use" of the automobile. Julie R., 76 Cal.App.4th at 140, 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 119.
In this case, although the dog occupied the truck's bed, the insured's "use" of the truck was not a predominating cause of the injury; the truck merely provided the si-tus for the injury. Accordingly, as the injury from the dog bite did not arise out of the "use" of the vehicle, a claim under the auto insurance policy fails and we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of National.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.