Cowiche Growers, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company

Good Law
449 F. App'x 594
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 2, 201110-36072California399 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Cowiche Growers, Inc. (“Cowiche”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Co. (“Continental”) in this “boiler and machinery” insurance coverage dispute. We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment to Continental because the policy did not provide coverage for the type of incident which occurred here, which did not satisfy the policy definition of “breakdown.” Although Cowiche tries to create an ambiguity based on differing definitions of “breakdown” in the original contract and an endorsement, the original definition was unambiguously “deleted and replaced in its entirety” by the language of the endorsement. The endorsement defines “breakdown” as a “sudden and accidental direct physical loss to Covered Equipment, which manifests itself by physical damage, necessitating its repair or replacement.” Cowiche’s proofs did not raise a triable issue that such “breakdown” occurred. See McDonald v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 119 Wash.2d 724 , 837 P.2d 1000, 1003-04 (1992) (“The insured must show the loss falls within the scope of the policy’s insured losses.”).

Moreover, both the original definition…

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.