22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T52e,MEMORANDUM ReadyLink Healthcare (hereinafter “ReadyLink”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Company (hereinafter “Evanston”) and the other defendants in this case, and denying plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. The district court entered final judgment after the appeal was filed, and therefore, appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order on a motion for summary judgment. We agree with the district court and hold that the evidence demonstrated that ReadyLink made the $75,000 payment to settle the hospital’s contractual indemnity claim, not the underlying malpractice claim. Section 2(d) of the insurance policy specifically excluded contractual indemnity claims. Therefore, Evanston did not breach the contract when it denied Rea-dyLink’s claim for the $75,000 payment. Because there was no coverage under the insurance policy, there can be no bad faith. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 11 Cal.4th 1, 35-36 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , 900 P.2d 619 (1995); Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136 , 1151— 1153, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1990). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T560,

MEMORANDUM

ReadyLink Healthcare (hereinafter “ReadyLink”) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Company (hereinafter “Evanston”) and the other defendants in this case, and denying plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment. The district court entered final judgment after the appeal was filed, and therefore, appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s order on a motion for summary judgment.

We agree with the district court and hold that the evidence demonstrated that ReadyLink made the $75,000 payment to settle the hospital’s contractual indemnity claim, not the underlying malpractice claim. Section 2(d) of the insurance policy specifically excluded contractual indemnity claims. Therefore, Evanston did not breach the contract when it denied Rea-dyLink’s claim for the $75,000 payment.

Because there was no coverage under the insurance policy, there can be no bad faith. See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 11 Cal.4th 1, 35-36 , 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 370 , 900 P.2d 619 (1995); Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 221 Cal.App.3d 1136 , 1151— 1153, 271 Cal.Rptr. 246 (1990).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.