Findley

MEMORANDUM *

In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Findley, 395 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Findley ”), we certified to the California Supreme Court a question of state law regarding the duties of excess liability insurers that we believed would be determinative of this appeal. The court granted our request and recently answered the certified question in Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Montes-Harris, 40 Cal.4th 151 , 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 709 , 146 P.3d 1251 (2006) (“Montes-Harris ”). In light of the California Supreme Court’s decision, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

In our certification order we asked the California Supreme Court to answer the following question:

Findley, 395 F.3d at 1048 . Although the California Supreme Court refrained from deciding whether excess Lability insurers are generally subject to Barrera’s reasonable investigation requirement, it held that, “where, as here, the sale of excess Lability insurance in a rental car transaction occurs after the rental car customer presents a facially valid driver’s license and after the Lcense inspection and signature verification requirements of Vehicle Code section 14608, subdivision (b), have been…