Microsoft Corp. v. American National Fire Insurance

*972 MEMORANDUM *

Microsoft appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant insurance companies. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and we will not reiterate them here.

The district court correctly determined that, despite plaintiffs prodigious efforts to find ambiguity, the insurance policy was not ambiguous; that is, it is not “fairly susceptible to two different reasonable interpretations.” 1 The context of the term “offenses” in the insurance policies in question makes it clear that the term denotes legally cognizable wrongs. 2 The insurance policy lists a number of offenses for which coverage applies. In addition to the listed offense in question in this case, the policy includes actions that are — or are descriptions of — torts. Thus, the context of the term “offenses” reveals that it refers to legally cognizable wrongs, not merely bad deeds that may be part of a legally cognizable wrong, as Microsoft argues. Accordingly, the policy is not ambiguous.

The district court, properly interpreting Washington precedent, 4 correctly concluded that the claims in the tendered lawsuits…