DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and can

affirm on any ground the record supports. Maner v. Dignity Health, 9 F.4th 1114,

1119 (9th Cir. 2021). We view evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party. Csutoras v. Paradise High Sch., 12 F.4th 960, 965 (9th Cir.

2021).

The crux of the parties’ dispute is whether Impress’s three printing errors

constituted one or more than one wrongful act. Impress argues that the three errors

themselves—problems with color variation, coating and overprint production

defects, and foiling production defects—established that they were separate

wrongful acts. Impress also points to the fact that the products were printed on

different machines, by different people, using different processes.

The policy language, however, is sufficiently broad to encompass the logical

connections between the errors. All three errors “have as a common connection”

“related . . . transactions.” The items Impress was printing were ordered during a

short period; were intended for a single product line; largely involved different parts

3 of packaging of single items (boxes and inserts); and shared an expedited shipping

timeline because they were to be used at a single trade show. Notably, the purchase

order for 330,000 silver boxes and inserts treated the two items as one product. The

district court’s analysis, though not binding given the de novo review standard, is

apt: “The putative lack of a causal connection does not erase the clear logical

connection these errors share: they were each made while manufacturing Packaging

for one customer’s line of Shampoo products.” ER 11; see also Bay Cities Paving

& Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Cal. 4th 854, 873 (1993) (holding that

a policy provision limiting reimbursement of related claims “encompasse[d] both

logical and causal connections”).

It may be true, as Impress suggests, that the policy language in this case might

be overly inclusive in other situations. But the facts of this case do not approach

those margins. This Court need only decide whether the wrongful act provision

applies “in the context of this policy and the circumstances of this case.” Id. at 868.

Travelers correctly interpreted the policy as applied to the very closely connected

circumstances presented.

Because Travelers satisfied its coverage obligation, Impress is not entitled to

punitive damages, and its bad faith claim fails as a matter of law. Love v. Fire Ins.

Exch., 221 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1153 (1990) (holding that “a bad faith claim cannot

be maintained unless policy benefits are due”).

4

AFFIRMED.

5