Conley v. First National Insurance Co. of America

Good Law
494 F. App'x 764
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 27, 201211-35577, 11-35617California529 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Dale and Karen Conley (the “Conleys”) appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment in this action against First National Insurance Company and American States Insurance Company (“Insurers”). Insurers cross-appeal the district court’s finding that there was a covered “occurrence” under the subject policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1382 , and we AFFIRM.

The relevant insurance policy covered “bodily injury.” Under Montana law, “bodily injury” includes “mental or psychological injury that is accompanied by physical manifestations.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Wagner-Ellsworth, 344 Mont. 445 , 188 P.3d 1042, 1051 (2008). “Such conditions include those which are susceptible to medical diagnosis and treatment in a manner which distinguishes them from mental injuries.” Id. at 1052.

The Conleys contend their allegation of “anxiety” triggered Insurers’ duty to defend because, unlike emotional distress or mental anguish, anxiety “is commonly understood to include physical manifestations.” They further argue this duty was triggered by their October 1, 2009, letter to Insurers, which…

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.