Admiral Insurance Company v. Pif High Yield Fund II

Good Law
450 F. App'x 682
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 29, 201110-15830, 10-16020California292 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

A group of holders of notes issued by now-defunct SONICblue, Inc. (the “1996 Bondholders”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”) on the basis of rescission, and the district court’s denial of the 1996 Bondholders’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Admiral cross-appeals, challenging the district court’s denial of the alternative bases for relief contained in its motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

‘We review a district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment de novo.” Avery v. First Resolution Mgmt. Corp., 568 F.3d 1018, 1021 (9th Cir.2009). “The meaning and construction of an insurance policy is a question of law reviewed de novo. Words used in an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to the plain meaning that a layperson would attach to them.” Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Stanewich, 142 F.3d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir.1998) (citation omitted).

The November 14, 2002, letter constituted a written demand for money or services. Therefore, SONICblue should have revealed the letter to Admiral in response to question 24 of the policy application. As…

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.