William Ambrosio v. Brit Uw Limited

MEMORANDUM

Several investors, as the assignees of ePlanning’s rights against Brit UW Limited (“Brit”), allege that Brit breached its contract with ePlanning and its duty of good faith and fair dealing under California law by refusing to defend ePlanning and to settle the investors’ claims. The district court dismissed the investors’ first' amended complaint with prejudice. We review de novo, Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 911 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc), and reverse.

1. In this diversity suit, ‘“the court must apply the law as it believes the California Supreme Court would apply it.’ ” Edgerly v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 713 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir.2013) (quoting Kairy v. SuperShuttle Int’l, 660 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir.2011)). “ ‘Where there is no convincing evidence that the state supreme court would decide differently, a federal court is obligated to follow the decisions of the state’s intermediate appellate courts.’ ” Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Mgmt., LLC, 689 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc) (quoting Ryman v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 505 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2007)). “To prevail on a claim for breach of the duty to defend, the insured need not prove…