FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TROY BJUGAN and ASHLI BJUGAN, No. 13-35927
Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01423-HU
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Dennis James Hubel, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 11, 2016**
Portland, Oregon
Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and WALTER,*** Senior
District Judge.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Donald E. Walter, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Before the magistrate judge, Troy and Ashli Bjugan argued that the losses
for which they seek recovery did not fall within the policy’s exclusion for losses
either consisting of, or directly and immediately caused by “domestic animals,”
because the cats hoarded by their tenant were not domestic animals. They have
abandoned that argument on appeal. They argue instead that their policy is
ambiguous as to whether it excludes from coverage all damage directly and
immediately caused by domestic animals, or only such damage that is predictable
and preventable and thus akin to ordinary wear and tear. We need not decide
whether this argument was adequately presented to the magistrate judge because,
in any event, it is unavailing. Read in the context of the policy as a whole, see
Hoffman Construction Co. of Alaska v. Fred S. James & Co., of Oregon, 836 P.2d
703, 706–07 (Or. 1992), the domestic-animals exclusion unambiguously excludes
coverage for all losses directly and immediately caused by domestic animals. The
canon of noscitur a sociis does not support the Bjugans’ narrower reading of the
domestic-animals exclusion. Indeed, such a reading would render that exclusion
superfluous, as another provision of the policy expressly excludes losses caused by
or consisting of ordinary wear and tear. See Cain Petroleum Inc. v. Zurich
American Insurance Co., 197 P.3d 596, 600 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
Page 3 of 3
Because the policy unambiguously excluded coverage for losses directly and
immediately caused by cats, we conclude that the magistrate judge did not err by
entering summary judgment for the defendant.
AFFIRMED.