Palm Desert National Bank v. Federal Insurance

MEMORANDUM **

Palm Desert National Bank (“PDNB”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”). PDNB also appeals the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The district court concluded that the financial institution bond (the “Policy”) issued by Federal did not cover PDNB’s vault cash because it was not “in transit” when the loss occurred. We review de novo a district court’s grant or denial of cross-motions for summary judgment. See Bader v. Northern Line Layers, Inc., 503 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.2007). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

*555 Because this is a diversity action that involves interpretation of an insurance contract, California insurance law governs the analysis. Conestoga Services Corp. v. Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., 312 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir.2002). “The rules governing policy interpretation require us to look first to the language of the contract in order to ascertain its plain meaning or the meaning a layperson would ordinarily attach to it.” See Waller v. Truck Ins. Exchange, Inc., 11 Cal.4th 1, 18 , 44 Cal. Rptr.2d 370 , 900 P.2d 619 (1995)…