Louis Hobaica v. First American Title Insurance

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s order dismissing their complaint against Sey Pet, LLC, and First American Title Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Reviewing de novo, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim against First American for breach of a title insurance policy (“Policy”) issued to Sey Pet. See Balsam v. Tucows Inc., 627 F.3d 1158, 1161 , 1163 & n. 3 (9th Cir.2010). Plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary claim fails because the Policy explicitly states that it is not intended to benefit parties, like Plaintiffs, who acquire an interest in the insured property through purchase. See id. at 1161 (explaining that a third party qualifies as a beneficiary only if the terms of the contract make evident an intent to benefit that party). Extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent after the Policy was issued does not alter this conclusion because we assess the parties’ intent “in light of the circumstances under which [the Policy] was entered.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

The district court did not err in dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims that were premised on First…