Case Name: Vilay SIRIPHONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-22
Citations: 414 F. App'x 991
Docket Number: No. 09-56504
Parties: Vilay SIRIPHONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and WOLF, Chief District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 991–992

Head Matter:
Vilay SIRIPHONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY; Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-56504.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 2011.
Filed Feb. 22, 2011.
Andy Van Le, Law Offices of Andy Van Le, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Tod Michael Castronovo, Esquire, Shaver, Korff & Castronovo, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and WOLF, Chief District Judge.
The Honorable Mark L. Wolf, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Vilay Siriphone argues Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breached its insurance contract in determining the policy benefits due to Siriphone after his auto repair shop was burglarized. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Acceptance on both of Siriphone's claims. We affirm.
1. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Siriphone contends Acceptance breached the implied covenant by conducting an inadequate investigation of his claim and unreasonably delaying settlement. We conclude, however, that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Acceptance's investigation was reasonable. There is no evidence that any error Acceptance may have made in handling the claim resulted from anything more than " 'honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence.' " Chateau Chamberay Homeowners Ass'n v. Assoc. Inti Ins. Co., 90 Cal.App.4th 335, 346, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 776 (Cal.App.2001) (quoting Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 272 Cal.Rptr. 387, 399-400 (1990)). Moreover, the delay in settling Siriphone's claim was justified by genuine disputes over the interpretation of the policy, the value of the shop's standing inventory and the value of the tools stolen. See Guebara v. Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 995-96 (9th Cir.2001). The district court correctly concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Acceptance's bad faith.
2. Breach of contract. Siriphone's breach of contract claim is based on the same claims mishandling conduct as his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The breach of contract claim was therefore properly dismissed for the same reasons the bad faith claim was dismissed. See Archdale v. Amer. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 154 Cal.App.4th 449, 64 Cal.Rptr.3d 632, 647 n. 19 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.