Case Name: CITY OF YAKIMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Specialty Surplus Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, Defendant-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 80 F. App'x 7
Docket Number: No. 02-35794; D.C. No. CV-01-03080-EFS
Parties: CITY OF YAKIMA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Specialty Surplus Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, Defendant—Appellees.
Judges: Before D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 7–7

Head Matter:
CITY OF YAKIMA, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; Gulf Underwriters Insurance Company, a New York corporation; Specialty Surplus Insurance Company, an Arizona corporation, Defendant—Appellees.
No. 02-35794.
D.C. No. CV-01-03080-EFS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2003.
Decided Oct. 22, 2003.
Arthur W. Harrigan, Esq., Katherine Kennedy, Esq., Timothy G. Leyh, Esq., Danielson, Harrigan & Tollefson, Seattle, WA, Raymond L. Paolella, Esq., Yakima City Attorney, Yakima, WA, Paul J. Lawrence, Esq., Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Thomas Martin Jones, Michael D. Handler, Esq., Cozen & O’eonnor, Russell Charles Love, Esq., Thorsrud Cane & Paulich, Seattle, WA, Bradley Edward Smith, Esq., Huppin Ewing Anderson & Paul, Spokane, WA for Defendant-Appellee.
Before D.W. NELSON, KOZINSKI, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The pollution exclusion provisions of the insurance policies exclude coverage for the damage claims for which the City of Yakima seeks indemnification and defense costs. See City of Bremerton v. Harbor Ins. Co., 92 Wash.App. 17, 963 P.2d 194, 197 (1998). We adopt the careful and considered reasoning of the district court and
AFFIRM.
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.