Court Opinion

ID: 9882300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 18:00:48.41005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:00.235944
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         OCT 5 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACK SARKISSIAN, DBA Jacks Jewelers;             No.    22-55962
SIERA JEWELRY, INC., a California
Corporation,                                     D.C. No.
                                                 2:22-cv-00927-AB-PVC
                Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

BERKLEY REGIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation; DOES, 1
through 50, inclusive,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                    Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted October 3, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiffs Jack Sarkissian, d.b.a. Jack’s Jewelers, and Siera Jewelry, Inc.,

timely appeal the district court’s dismissal of their claims arising out of an

      *
             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).
insurance contract provided by Defendant Berkley Regional Insurance Co.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendant must pay for losses arising from the COVID-19

pandemic and the resulting governmental shut-down orders. But the relevant

insurance policy contains a virus-exclusion provision that 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.” Reviewing de novo, Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15

F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

      The district court correctly held that the virus-exclusion provision precludes

Plaintiffs’ claims. We held in Mudpie that a nearly identical provision precluded

similar claims. 15 F.4th at 893–94; accord Musso & Frank Grill Co. v. Mitsui

Sumitomo Ins. USA Inc., 293 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 6–7 (Ct. App. 2022). As in Mudpie,

Plaintiffs have not alleged plausibly that “the efficient cause” of Plaintiffs’ losses

was anything other than the spread of COVID-19 throughout California. 15 F.4th

at 894 (citation omitted). Plaintiffs argue that Mudpie misapplied California law,

but we are bound by Mudpie. Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899–900 (9th Cir.

2003) (en banc).

      We need not, and do not, reach any other arguments raised by the parties.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2