Federal Insurance v. Homestore, Inc.

Good Law
144 F. App'x 641
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 2005Nos. 03-55995, 03-55996, 03-55997, 03-55998, 03-56351, 03-56365, 03-56445, 3-56468, 03-56472, 03-56488, 03-56508, 03-56509, 03-56641, 03-56644California1,777 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In this consolidated diversity appeal, Defendants-Appellants (“Insureds”) Homestore, Inc. (“Homestore”), together with current and former Homestore directors and officers, appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees (“Insurers”) Genesis Insurance Company (“Genesis”), Royal Indemnity Company (“Royal”), Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) and Clarendon Insurance Company (“Clarendon”). Appellants contend that the district judge erred in granting summary judgment to the Insurers and declaring the Insurers’ directors’ and officers’ (“D & 0”) insurance policies were rescinded “as to all Insureds.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, see Southern Cal. Painters v. Best Interiors, Inc., 359 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

I

As the facts are known to the parties, we do not recite them here, except as necessary to our disposition. Homestore argues that the Insurers are obligated, as a matter of law, to indemnify them based on the D & 0 liability insurance policies. The Insurers contend that they are entitled, as a matter of law, to rescind each of the four…

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.