Peppermill of Nevada v. Industrial Indem. Co.

46 F.3d 1144 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. PEPPERMILL OF NEVADA, a California corporation; Peppermill, Inc., a Nevada corp.; CPK Enterprises, a Nevada general partnership; William Paganetti; Natale A. Carasali, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California corporation; Does 1-50, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15793. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted: Dec. 13, 1994. Decided: Jan. 6, 1995. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, PREGERSON and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 We have carefully reviewed the record and the district court's decision and heard oral argument from the parties. We affirm for the reasons fully explicated in the district court's well reasoned order. We hold that under the unambiguous terms of the policy, Industrial Indemnity has no duty to defend or indemnify the Peppermill party plaintiffs. 3 The Peppermill parties raise one issue which was not addressed by the district court's…