Farmer ex rel. Hansen v. Allstate Insurance

Good Law
171 F. App'x 111
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 14, 2006No. 04-55415; D.C. No. CV-03-05764-SVWCalifornia1,235 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant, 1 by and through her guardian ad litem, Andrea Hansen, appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment in favor of Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). The' district court ruled that Allstate had no duty to defend Nadine Varela in Appellant’s underlying state court action against Nadine and Carlos Varela and their licensed child care business, Varela Family Care, which was located in the Varelas’ home. 2 We agree with the district court that the Allstate Deluxe Homeowners Policy, including its Home Day Care Coverage Endorsement, did not cover the Varelas for injuries sustained by Appellant when she was molested by Mr. Varela while at Varela Family Care. We therefore affirm the district court’s rulings on the cross-motions for summary judgment.

We reject Appellant’s contention that although Mr. Varela was “an insured” for the purpose of the Varelas’ homeowners policy, he was not “an insured” for purposes of the separate but related day care endorsement. 3 The plain language of the Allstate policy makes clear that Mr. Varela was “an insured” under the day care endorsement and that its exclusions apply to him. The day care endorsement, 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.