K. B. Ex Rel. Kanteiko v. Hartford Casualty Insurance

Good Law
608 F. App'x 492
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 24, 201513-55511California458 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not err by granting summary judgment to Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, finding that it had no duty to defend Kurt and Anne Redlinger under their Hartford business insurance policy, in a personal injury lawsuit between K.B. and the Redlingers wherein K.B. suffered severe injuries after nearly drowning in the Redlingers’ pool at a birthday party at their home. Whether Hartford owed a duty to defend to the Redlingers “is made in the first instance by comparing the allegations of the complaint with the terms of the policy.” Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior Court, 6 Cal.4th 287 , 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 467 , 861 P.2d 1153, 1157 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We also look at known “[flacts extrinsic to the complaint” to determine whether “they reveal a possibility that the claim may be covered by the policy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, neither the complaint nor the extrinsic facts revealed a possibility that the underlying claim could be covered by this business insurance policy. Hartford insured the Redlinger’s rental property business located in El Cajon. None of the information provided to Hartford suggested that the…

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.