Steiny & Co. v. Continental Casualty Co.

*101 MEMORANDUM ***

Steiny and Company, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Continental Casualty Company. Steiny claims that two genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment: (1) whether Continental misrepresented Steiny’s insurance policy to a third party, and (2) whether Continental improperly settled claims made against Steiny over Steiny’s objection and in violation of the terms of the insurance policy.

The district court did not explain the basis for its decision, nor did it hold oral argument. While we could remand for clarification, Couveau v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 218 F.3d 1078 , 1081 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), our independent review of the record satisfies us that summary judgment was improperly granted. Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Steiny, see Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004), we find four genuine issues of disputed material fact.

Steiny’s claim that Continental misrepresented the insurance policy and injured Steiny raises a genuine issue of material fact. See Lies v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 641 F.2d 765, 770 (9th Cir.1981) (“[cjausation is generally a…