FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES JARDINE, ) No. 11-17574
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03318-SC
) 3:10-cv-03319-SC
v. ) 3:10-cv-03335-SC
) 3:10-cv-03336-SC
MARYLAND CASUALTY )
COMPANY; ONEBEACON ) MEMORANDUM *
INSURANCE COMPANY; )
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants – Appellees. )
)
JAMES JARDINE, ) No. 12-15157
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03335-SC
) 3:10-cv-03318-SC
v. ) 3:10-cv-03319-SC
) 3:10-cv-33336-SC
MARYLAND CASUALTY )
COMPANY; ONEBEACON )
INSURANCE COMPANY; )
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants – Appellees. )
)
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: RIPPLE,** FERNANDEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
James Jardine appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland) and Employers Fire Insurance Company
(Employers) on Jardine’s claims against them arising out of damage to the south
wall of his building due to an improper plastering job and arising out of damage
caused by a small fire in the building. We affirm.
(1) Jardine asserts that the district court erred when it held that the
deterioration exclusion in the Maryland policy precluded coverage of his claim
regarding the south wall damage,1 and that Maryland was not precluded from so
arguing.2 He also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that he
was not entitled to more than he had already been paid for the fire loss and any of
**
The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge for
the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
1
Jardine v. Maryland Cas. Co., 823 F. Supp. 2d 955, 960–61 (N.D. Cal.
2011).
2
Id. at 962.
2
its consequences.3 We do not agree. Rather, after careful review, we do agree with
the district court’s thoroughly reasoned analysis of the record and of California
law. We, therefore, affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order
regarding Maryland.
(2) Jardine then asserts that the district court erred when it held that the
deterioration exclusion in the Employers policy precluded his first party claim
regarding south wall damage,4 and that the south wall damage was manifest before
the Employers policy was obtained, which precluded his third party claim.5 He
also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that he was not entitled
to more than he had already been paid for the fire damage and any of its
consequences.6 Again, we do not agree. Rather, after careful review, we do agree
with the district court’s thoroughly reasoned analysis of the record and of
California law. We, therefore, affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s
order regarding Employers.
AFFIRMED.
3
Id. at 962–66.
4
Jardine v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., Nos. 10-3335 SC, 10-3336 SC (N.D.
Cal. Dec. 27, 2011), Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
at 20– 21.
5
Id. at 22–25.
6
Id. at 9–19.
3