Opinion ID: 657834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard of Review and California Insurance Law

Text: 14 This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Jones v. Union Pacific R.R., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir.1992). We view the evidence in present case in the light most favorable to appellants to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O'Melveny & Meyers, 969 F.2d 744, 747 (9th Cir.1992). This court may affirm on any ground supported by the record. United States v. Washington, 969 F.2d 752, 755 (9th Cir.1992). 15 Under California insurance law, policy provisions are interpreted according to the ordinary plain meaning of the terms and the interpretation should give effect to the reasonable expectations of the insured. Finn v. Continental Ins. Co., 267 Cal.Rptr. 22, 24 (App.1990). The insurer has the burden of showing that an exclusion to basic coverage applies to the damage. Garvey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 770 P.2d 704, 710 (Cal.1989). Exclusions from basic coverage are interpreted narrowly while the textual descriptions of the scope of coverage are interpreted broadly in favor of coverage. Id.