Daryl Gregory v. Nationwide Mutual Ins Co

Good Law
611 F. App'x 410
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 201513-15161California596 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. The policy excludes coverage for loss from “[njesting or infestation, or discharge or release of waste products or secretions by birds, vermin, rodents, insects or domestic animals.” Mites are the paradigmatic example of “vermin.” See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2544 (2002) (defining “vermin” as “small animals (as lice, bedbugs, mice) that tend to occur in great numbers, are difficult to control, and are offensive as well as injurious”); see also Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 1390 (11th ed.2005) (“small common harmful or objectionable animals (as lice or fleas) that are difficult to control”); XIX The Oxford English Dictionary 547 (2d ed.1989) (“creeping or wingless insects (and other minute animals) of a loathsome or offensive appearance or character, esp. those which infest or are parasitic on living beings and plants”). Nothing in the policy suggests we should depart from the “ordinary sense” of the term that we ascertain from its dictionary definition. See Scott v. Continental Ins. Co., 44 Cal.App.4th 24 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 566, 569-70 (1996). Moreover, considering the context of the “vermin” exclusion — a broad exclusion of loss caused…

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.