Case Name: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant; Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-12
Citations: 378 F. App'x 739
Docket Number: Nos. 08-16342, 08-16434
Parties: HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 08-16342, 08-16434.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010.
Filed May 12, 2010.
David A. Gauntlett, James A. Lowe, Esquire, Gauntlett & Associates, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Steven Harris Bergman, Martin S. Che-eov, Esquire, John Daum, Mark Wood, Esquire, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert J. Romero, Bradley M. Zamczyk, Esquire, Hinshaw & Culbertson, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
"[T]he duty to defend, although broad, is not unlimited; it is measured by the nature and lands of risks covered by the policy." Waller v. Truck Ins. Exch., 11 Cal.4th 1, 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 900 P.2d 619, 628 (1995). The policy here was a "foreign" general liability policy, and coverage was limited to "claim or suit resulting from an occurrence outside the United States of America, its territories or possessions, Canada, Cuba and North Korea." Yet Nu-kote only conducted its business inside the United States, and any injury to Nu-kote resulted from an occurrence in the United States. Because there was no potential for coverage of Nu-kote's counterclaims under the policy, ACE had no duty to defend.
REVERSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.