NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO ARROYO, No. 14-16878
Plaintiff - Counter- D.C. No. 4:13-cv-02810-JSW
defendant - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Counter-claimant -
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS,*** Chief
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Raner C. Collins, United States Chief District Judge
for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Plaintiff Pedro Arroyo appeals from the district court’s decision on cross-
motions for summary judgment in this insurance coverage dispute. The district
court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Unigard Insurance
Company on the ground that Unigard did not owe a duty to defend its insured, Jack
Neal & Sons, Inc. and Jack Neal (collectively, “JNS”), in Arroyo’s previous state
court action alleging that JNS’s improper development and management of his
vineyard caused property damage. We hold that Unigard did not owe a duty to
defend JNS in Arroyo’s state court action and, therefore, is not liable to Arroyo.
1. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. A district court’s decision
on cross-motions for summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Guatay
Christian Fellowship v. Cty. of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011).
Under California law, an insurer must provide a defense for its insured against any
“suit which potentially seeks damages within the coverage of the policy.” Horace
Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 846 P.2d 792, 795 (Cal. 1993) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Once it appears that claims against the insured create a potential
for indemnity, the insurer’s defense duty will continue “until it has been shown
that there is no potential for coverage.” Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. Superior
2
Court, 861 P.2d 1153, 1157 (Cal. 1993). In other words, “the insurer must prove
[the underlying claims] cannot” fall within the policy coverage in order to be
relieved of its duty to defend. Id. at 1161.
Here, the district court properly concluded that Exclusion J(5) of Unigard’s
insurance policy issued to JNS precluded coverage of Arroyo’s state-court claims.
Exclusion J(5) specifically states that Unigard’s policy does not cover “property
damage” to “[t]hat particular part of real property on which you . . . are performing
operations, if the ‘property damage’ arises out of those operations.” The district
court properly construed “that particular part of real property” to cover Arroyo’s
entire vineyard that JNS was hired to develop and manage. The district court also
properly concluded that “are performing operations” does not exclude only
property damage that developed simultaneously as the work was being performed,
but also property damage that clearly flows from the insured’s work on the
property. Because all of Arroyo’s property damage alleged in his state court action
arose out of JNS’s operations, Exclusion J(5) relieved Unigard of its duty to defend
JNS and, therefore, Unigard is not liable to Arroyo.
AFFIRMED.
3