Court Opinion

ID: 9773848
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:00:52.305742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:02.229943
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BEST AUTO REPAIR, INC., a California            No.    22-55784
Corporation; et al.,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,          2:21-cv-02874-FLA-PD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
Corporation; THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, a Connecticut
Corporation,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
               Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 23, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs-Appellants Best Auto Repair, Inc., and thirteen other businesses

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their

insurance coverage claims for business losses stemming from COVID-19 and the

related government shutdown orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and review de novo. Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885,

889 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.

      Plaintiffs are insured under identical provisions of Defendant-Appellee

Travelers Casualty Insurance Company’s policies (“Policies”). The Policies cover

“direct physical loss of or damage to property . . . caused by or resulting from a

Covered Cause of Loss.” The Policies also contain a Virus Exclusion clause, which

bars coverage “for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium

or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress,

illness or disease.”

      The Virus Exclusion clause clearly and unambiguously bars Plaintiffs’ claims

for losses or damages. Plaintiffs contend that COVID-19 government shutdown

orders—not the COVID-19 virus itself—caused their losses, so the Virus Exclusion

does not apply. We rejected these arguments in Mudpie. In that case, we held:

      Though Mudpie argues it was the government orders that most directly
      caused its injury, Mudpie does not plausibly allege that “the efficient
      cause,” i.e., the one that set others in motion, was anything other than
      the spread of the virus throughout California, or that the virus was
      merely a remote cause of its losses. Accordingly, the Policy’s Virus
      Exclusion bars coverage for Mudpie's claims.

                                         2
Mudpie, 15 F.4th at 894 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that Mudpie

applied the incorrect legal standard under California law. But as a three-judge panel,

we cannot overrule our prior precedent. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

      Because the Virus Exclusion clause independently bars Plaintiffs’ claims, we

do not address Plaintiffs’ other arguments.

   AFFIRMED.

                                          3