Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

MEMORANDUM

Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. (“Ventana”) appeals from the district court’s summary judgment and attorney fees award in its insurance coverage action against St. Paul Fire & Marine, Ins. Co. (“St. Paul”). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the history of this case, we need not recount it here.

I

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Ventana’s claim that St. Paul owed it a duty to defend an .underlying patent infringement action filed by Di-gene Corporation. Because this is a diversity case on appeal from the District Court for the District of Arizona, Arizona law applies. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519 F.3d 1035, 1037-38 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 , 58 S.Ct. 817 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938)). Arizona courts have long recognized that the duty to defend is distinct and broader than the duty to indemnify. See INA Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Valley Forge Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 248 , 722 P.2d 975, 982 (Ariz.Ct.App.1986). Under Arizona law, an insurer’s duty to defend attaches to “any claim potentially covered by [its] policy.” United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v. Morris, 154 Ariz. 113 , 741 P.2d 246, 250 (1987). An…