SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DIST. V. ACE AMERICAN INS. CO., No. 14-56811 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 14-56811 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00070-CAB-RBB v. MEMORANDUM* ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 10, 2017 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. The San Diego Unified Port District appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. of ACE American Insurance Company.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm. The subject insurance policy includes a very broad exclusion that unambiguously defeats the Port’s claim for coverage. We find no support for the Port’s argument that the exclusion does not apply because the “gravamen” of the prior proceedings did not include consideration of the Port’s conduct. There were no questions of fact that precluded entry of summary judgment, and the district court did not err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims against the Port fall within the policy’s exclusion. AFFIRMED. 1 The parties are familiar with the facts so they are not repeated here. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.