M & F Fishing, Inc. v. Certain Lloyds of London Underwriters

MEMORANDUM

The district court granted summary judgment to Certain Lloyds of London Underwriters. M & F appeals the judgment and also appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to default Underwriters for failure to post a bond under California Insurance Code § 1616. The district court had admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (1) and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because we affirm the judgment against M & F, any error regarding the bond was harmless and we need not reach the merits of that issue.

M & F brought several claims for coverage under an insurance policy issued by Underwriters. In ruling on Underwriters’ motion for summary judgment, the district court limited its analysis to the policy provision covering “negligence of the Masters Officers Crew or Pilots,” otherwise known as the Inchmaree Clause. M & F argues that the district court erred because it had sufficiently pled and disclosed during discovery its intent to assert claims under other provisions of the policy. However, the only facts alleged in M & F’s complaint and discovery responses relate to the negligence of the substitute custodian, George Copitas. Underwriters…