Case Name: PULTE HOME CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Does, 1 Through 5, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-14
Citations: 50 F. App'x 878
Docket Number: No. 01-57090; D.C. No. CV-00-00609-JTM/AJB
Parties: PULTE HOME CORPORATION, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Does, 1 Through 5, Defendants — Appellees.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, THOMPSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 878–878

Head Matter:
PULTE HOME CORPORATION, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; Does, 1 Through 5, Defendants — Appellees.
No. 01-57090.
D.C. No. CV-00-00609-JTM/AJB.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.
Decided Nov. 14, 2002.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, THOMPSON and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pulte Home Corporation appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company on its claims of breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and for declaratory relief. The district court found Nationwide had no duty to defend Pulte, an additional insured covered by a commercial general liability policy issued by Nationwide to Pacific Soils Engineering, in the underlying construction defect action. It concluded that there was no coverage under the policy, reasoning in part that the inspection and testing services provided by Pacific Soils on the Antelope Run project were not covered by the policy, which only provided coverage for property damage caused by an "occurrence." The policy further defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same harmful conditions."
Because the district court properly ruled that the provision of professional services such as those provided by Pacific Soils could not be deemed an "accident" amounting to an "occurrence" under California law, see Ray v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 77 Cal.App.4th 1039, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 473 (Cal.Ct.App.2000), the district court judgment is
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.