City of Matinez v. New Hampshire Insurance

Good Law
152 F. App'x 669
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 3, 2005No. 03-17309California361 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

New Hampshire Insurance Company appeals the district court’s decision reversing the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in New Hampshire Insurance Company’s favor. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We reverse the district court’s decision and remand the case to the district court with instruction that it affirm the bankruptcy court’s opinion.

We agree with the Appellant that Sterling Builders Inc. v. United National Ins. Co., 79 Cal.App.4th 105 , 93 Cal. Rptr.2d 697 (Ct.App.2000) and Mirpad v. California Ins. Guarantee Assoc., 132 Cal. App.4th 1058 , 34 Cal.Rptr.3d 136 (Ct.App. 2005), apply to the facts of this case. Following Sterling Builders, we conclude that the policy’s “invasion of the right of private occupancy” language cannot provide a basis for coverage because the flooding never physically invaded or actually intruded into the leased premises. See Sterling Builders, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d at 702 (concluding that there was no coverage because the insured party “w[as] not damaged by a trespass, an entry or intrusion”).

We conclude also that Captain Blyther’s interest in the parking lot was not a sufficient property interest in…

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.