Sophie Schimmelfennig v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

60 F.3d 834 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Sophie SCHIMMELFENNIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-17203. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted June 13, 1995. Decided July 7, 1995. Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, D.C. No. CV-93-00834-FMS; Fern M. Smith, District Judge, Presiding. N.D.Cal. REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, REMANDED. 1 Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges 2 MEMORANDUM * 3 Sophie Schimmelfennig appeals a summary judgment awarded to State Farm in this diversity action for breach of contract to defend under her homeowner's policy. She contends that the district court erred in concluding that the record presented no material question of fact concerning State Farm's duty to defend and indemnify her in a tort case she lost in the Superior Court. BACKGROUND 4 Schimmelfennig raises chickens…