Mannering

MEMORANDUM *

John Mannering appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Hawaii Employers’ Mutual Insurance Company (“HEMIC”) on his claims for bad faith failure to defend, negligence, misrepresentation, estoppel, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, conspir *116 acy to defraud, breach of contract, breach of warranty, deceptive practices, and punitive damages. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We reverse the grant of summary judgment on the failure to defend claim, but affirm as to all other claims.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Newman v. County of Orange, 457 F.3d 991, 993 (9th Cir.2006). In doing so, we view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party” to determine “whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.” United States ex rel. Ali v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall, 355 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir.2004).

I

Mannering argues that HEMIC was at fault under several tort and contract theories for failing to make clear that the insurance policy it offered and sold him did not include United States…