Impress Communications, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Casualty Co.

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…