Ross Richardson v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.

Good Law
593 F. App'x 641
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 10, 201513-35098California473 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. Cincinnati Insurance Company’s policy specifies that “[a]s a condition precedent to coverage ... [,][t]he ‘policy in sureds’ shall give [Cincinnati] written notice of any ‘claim’ made against any of the ‘policy insureds’ for a ‘wrongful act.’ ” It is undisputed that Yellowstone Club World and its bankruptcy trustee, Richardson, are not “policy insureds.” Because the February 3, 2010 letter from Richardson’s counsel notifying Cincinnati of Proof of Claim 46 was not sent by a “policy insured,” Cincinnati does not have a duty to defend. See Steadele v. Colony Ins. Co., 361 Mont. 459 , 260 P.3d 145, 149 (2011) (“when the language of a policy is clear and explicit, the policy should be enforced as written”); La Bonte v. Mut. Fire & Lightning Ins. Co. of Richland Cnty., 75 Mont. 1 , 241 P. 631, 633, 635 (1925) (holding that the policy’s requirement that “the insured shall give immediate notice [of loss or damage] ... and ... deliver to the [insurer] a particular statement in writing of such loss or damage” is “a condition precedent, and failure to comply therewith will bar a recovery under the policy”).

2. Plaintiffs argue that Newman v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 370…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.