Ash

Ash v. Gainsco, Inc.

Good Law
23 F. App'x 797
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 17, 2001No. 00-16686; D.C. No. CV-00-00046-MJJCalifornia387 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Yvonne and Clinton Ash, and STLB, Inc., appeal from summary judgment in favor of Gainsco, Inc., General Agents Insurance Company of America, and the Gainsco Companies (Gainsco) in their ac *798 tion for bad faith and breach of contract. We affirm.

The Ashes argue that STLB’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy is ambiguous because an ordinary insured could reasonably conclude that the products-completed operations (PCO) coverage arose independently of Coverage A and its auto exclusion. Gainsco agrees that the CGL policy includes PCO coverage, but contends that it is in Coverage A which unambiguously excludes injuries arising out of use of an automobile. This must be so, as the only insuring agreement for bodily injury and property damage liability is in Coverage A. The policy also specifies that the PCO aggregate limit is the most Gainsco will pay “under coverage A for damages because of ‘bodily injury’ and ‘property damage’ included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard.’ ” The Ashes’ suggestion that the endorsement containing the ISO 2104 Exclusion excludes PCO coverage from Coverage A but not from the policy as a whole lacks substance;…

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.