Opinion ID: 204907
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trishan's Claim Premised On Coverage 29 of the Policy

Text: Coverage 29 of the policy provided: If a scheduled aircraft is not used in-flight for more than the minimum lay-up period shown in the Declarations the named insured agrees to notify the Company as soon as practicable. At the end of the policy period, the Company will return a pro-rata percentage credit of the applicable premium for the entire period of the lay-up as shown under Coverage 29 in the Declarations. The insurance provided by Coverage 29 shall not apply to any scheduled aircraft laid up because of any loss or damage covered by the Policy. (emphases omitted). Because Trishan's complaint did not raise this claim, it was not properly before the district court. [19] See Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Tech., Inc., 435 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2006) (The necessary factual averments are required with respect to each material element of the underlying legal theory. Simply put, summary judgment is not a procedural second chance to flesh out inadequate pleadings.) (citation and alterations omitted); see also Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968-69 (9th Cir.2006). [20]
California law requires strict compliance with a pilot warranty. Trishan failed to comply with any aspect of the warranty's required training for co-pilots, and no material issue of fact was raised regarding insurance coverage. Because there was a genuine question of coverage at the time the coverage determination was made, no material issue of fact was raised concerning Trishan's bad faith claims. AFFIRMED.