NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
VIERRAMOORE, INC., a California No. 13-15981
corporation,
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01926-MCE-
Plaintiff-counter-defendant - EFB
Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
VierraMoore, Inc., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Continental Casualty Company in VierraMoore’s diversity action alleging
that the insurance company breached its duty to defend and indemnify as required
in the professional liability policy it issued to VierraMoore. VierraMoore also
alleges that Continental Casualty acted in bad faith. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
We agree with the district court that the bond exclusion, which excluded
coverage of any claim “based upon, directly or indirectly arising out of, or in any
way involving the failure to effect or maintain any insurance or bond,” is broad,
unambiguous, and enforceable. All of the claims asserted against VierraMoore in
the underlying action arose out of VierraMoore’s failure to ensure that surety
bonds remained effective until construction was complete. Because of the bond
exclusion, there was no potential for coverage under the professional liability
policy, and the insurance company had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The
district court properly granted summary judgment on all of VierraMoore’s claims
in favor of Continental Casualty. Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
519 F.3d 1025, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2