Court Opinion

ID: 9840603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 17:01:19.640888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:38:07.201542
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLIED PREMIER INSURANCE, a Risk                No.    20-55099
Retention Group; a Connecticut corporation,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiff-Appellee,             5:18-cv-00088-JGB-KK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, an Ohio corporation,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

                     Argued and Submitted February 11, 2021
                     Submission Withdrawn March 22, 2021
                        Resubmitted September 19, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      United Financial Casualty Company appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to Allied Premier Insurance. Because the facts are known to the

parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      The only issue on appeal is whether California’s Motor Carriers of Property

Permit Act (“MCPPA”), Cal. Veh. Code §§ 34600 et seq., continued the coverage

of United’s insurance policy with Porras after the policy otherwise ended by its own

terms. The district court relied on California precedent interpreting an earlier

version of the statute to determine that United’s policy continued through Porras’s

accident, and United was thus liable for equitable contribution to Allied. The district

court also entered judgment for Allied on its equitable subrogation and declaratory

relief claims. Mindful of the statutory changes since earlier California precedents,

we certified this state law question to the California Supreme Court. Allied Premier

Ins. v. United Fin. Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2021). Its answer decides this

appeal.

       “The duration of the policy’s coverage is regulated by its terms and those of

any endorsement or amendment to the policy itself.” Allied Premier Ins. v. United

Fin. Cas. Co., 15 Cal. 5th 20, 39 (2023). United’s policy with Porras terminated

automatically when Porras did not renew the policy. The MCPPA did not extend its

duration. Id. at 34. (“[T]he Act does not prevent cancellation or termination of an

insurance policy under the terms of the contract.”).

      United’s policy coverage terminated before Porras’s accident. Accordingly,

the district court’s summary judgment on Allied’s claims for equitable

contribution, equitable subrogation, and declaratory relief must be reversed.

                                          2
REVERSED.

            3