MEMORANDUM

Appellants appeal the district court’s decision granting Carolina Casualty Insurance Company’s (“Carolina Casualty”) motion for summary judgment, and denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue that the district court erred in concluding that A & A Transport Company (“A & A”) was not covered as an additional insured by Antonini’s insurance policy with Carolina Casualty for liability arising from the August 10, 2005 car accident. We affirm.

Appellants first argue that A & A was covered by Antonini’s general commercial liability policy, but that the automobile exclusion to that policy did not apply. A & A was unquestionably covered by Antonini’s general commercial liability policy. Appellants do not contest that the general commercial liability policy contains an automobile exclusion that applies to Antonini. There is no language in the Blanket Endorsement, or anywhere else in the insurance policy, that makes the automobile exclusion inapplicable to A & A. We therefore conclude that the automobile exclusion applies to A & A, just as it applies to Antonini.

Appellants also argue that A & A is covered by Antonini’s auto insurance policy through the Certificate of Insurance. Appellants acknowledge that under California law, a certificate of insurance cannot amend an insurance policy. See, e.g., Cal. Ins.Code § 384(a); Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bell, 55 Cal.App.4th 1410 , 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 , 757 n. 25 (1997). They argue, however, that because the Blanket Endorsement provides that the insurance required under the Hauling Agreement would be “evidenced by a certificate of Insurance,” the Certificate of Insurance should be read as evidence of the extent of the coverage provided. This language from the Blanket Endorsement, however, signifies only that the Certificate of Insurance is evidence that a policy has been issued, not that it can override the unambiguous provisions of that policy. See Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 64 Cal. Rptr.2d at 757 n. 25.

AFFIRMED.

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