KCTS Television v. Federal Insurance

Good Law
209 F. App'x 651
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 2006No. 05-35533California560 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

KCTS Television appeals the district court’s orders dismissing its action against its insurance carrier, Federal Insurance Company, and denying its motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that KCTS’s loss from the first Red Bull petition is not covered under either the 2001-2002 policy or the 2008-2004 policy, we affirm.

Under Washington law, courts must construe insurance policies “as a whole,” giving “a fair, reasonable, and sensible construction as would be given to the contract by the average person purchasing insurance.” Kitsap County v. Allstate Ins. Co., 136 Wash.2d 567 , 964 P.2d 1173, 1177 (1998). Coverage is determined by the plain meaning of the policy terms; defined words are interpreted in accordance with their definitions while undefined terms are given their ordinary meaning. Id. at 1178 . Courts may not modify insurance contracts or create ambiguity where policy terms are clear, but where a genuine ambiguity cannot be resolved by extrinsic evidence it is construed against the insurer. Id.

KCTS concedes that the first petition is not itself covered by either policy, because it was not reported to Federal during the term of the 2001-2002…

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.