NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE No. 10-15775
COMPANY,
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00691-LJO-SMS
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellee,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ESTATE OF JAVIER ORTIZ FUENTES,
by and through its Representative,
Defendant,
ELIZABETH S. ORTIZ; ALEXIS J.
ORTIZ; KASSANDRA N. ORTIZ,
Defendants-counter-
claimants,
and
VERONICA DIEGO, Guardian ad Litem
for minors, Jose Antonio Diego and
Roberto Diego-Jeronimo; MARIA
GUADALUPE VEGA, Guardian Ad
Litem for minors, Karina Alejandra Cortes
Alfaro and Luis Gerargo Cortes Alfaro;
MARIA MERCADO, Guardian ad Litem
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
of Vicky Nava, Joselyn Nava and
Stephanie Nava; FAVIOLA QUEZADAS
DE VELASQUEZ, Guardian ad Litem for
minor, Laura Alejandra Valasquez
Quezadas, Alondra Lizabeth Velasquez
Quezadas, Jose De Jesus Velasquez-
Quezada, John Velasquez-Quezada,
Richard Velasquez-Quezada, and Diego
Emmanuel Velasquez-Quezada,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellants.
CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE No. 10-15856
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00691-LJO-SKO
Appellee,
v.
ESTATE OF JAVIER ORTIZ FUENTES,
by and through its Representative,
Defendant - Appellant,
ELIZABETH S. ORTIZ; ALEXIS J.
ORTIZ; KASSANDRA N. ORTIZ,
Defendants-counter-claimants
- Appellants,
and
VERONICA DIEGO, Guardian ad Litem
2
for minors, Jose Antonio Diego and
Roberto Diego-Jeronimo; MARIA
GUADALUPE VEGA, Guardian Ad
Litem for minors, Karina Alejandra Cortes
Alfaro and Luis Gerargo Cortes Alfaro;
MARIA MERCADO, Guardian ad Litem
of Vicky Nava, Joselyn Nava and
Stephanie Nava; FAVIOLA QUEZADAS
DE VELASQUEZ, Guardian ad Litem for
minor, Laura Alejandra Valasquez
Quezadas, Alondra Lizabeth Velasquez
Quezadas, Jose De Jesus Velasquez-
Quezada, John Velasquez-Quezada,
Richard Velasquez-Quezada, and Diego
Emmanuel Velasquez-Quezada,
Defendants-counter-
claimants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 12, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and JONES,
District Judge.**
Appellants appeal the district court’s decision granting Carolina Casualty
Insurance Company’s (“Carolina Casualty”) motion for summary judgment, and
**
The Honorable Robert Clive Jones, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for Nevada, Reno, sitting by designation.
3
denying Appellants’ motion for summary judgment. Appellants argue that the
district court erred in concluding that A&A Transport Company (“A&A”) was not
covered as an additional insured by Antonini’s insurance policy with Carolina
Casualty for liability arising from the August 10, 2005 car accident. We affirm.
Appellants first argue that A&A was covered by Antonini’s general
commercial liability policy, but that the automobile exclusion to that policy did not
apply. A&A was unquestionably covered by Antonini’s general commercial
liability policy. Appellants do not contest that the general commercial liability
policy contains an automobile exclusion that applies to Antonini. There is no
language in the Blanket Endorsement, or anywhere else in the insurance policy,
that makes the automobile exclusion inapplicable to A&A. We therefore conclude
that the automobile exclusion applies to A&A, just as it applies to Antonini.
Appellants also argue that A&A is covered by Antonini’s auto insurance
policy through the Certificate of Insurance. Appellants acknowledge that under
California law, a certificate of insurance cannot amend an insurance policy. See,
e.g., Cal. Ins. Code § 384(a); Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bell, 64 Cal. Rptr.
2d 749, 757 n.25 (Ct. App. 1997). They argue, however, that because the Blanket
Endorsement provides that the insurance required under the Hauling Agreement
would be “evidenced by a certificate of Insurance,” the Certificate of Insurance
4
should be read as evidence of the extent of the coverage provided. This language
from the Blanket Endorsement, however, signifies only that the Certificate of
Insurance is evidence that a policy has been issued, not that it can override the
unambiguous provisions of that policy. See Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 64
Cal. Rptr. 2d at 757 n.25.
AFFIRMED.
5