NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEST AUTO REPAIR, INC., a California No. 22-55784
Corporation; et al.,
D.C. No.
Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:21-cv-02874-FLA-PD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
Corporation; THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY OF
CONNECTICUT, a Connecticut
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants Best Auto Repair, Inc., and thirteen other businesses
*
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).
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their
insurance coverage claims for business losses stemming from COVID-19 and the
related government shutdown orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and review de novo. Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885,
889 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm.
Plaintiffs are insured under identical provisions of Defendant-Appellee
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company’s policies (“Policies”). The Policies cover
“direct physical loss of or damage to property . . . caused by or resulting from a
Covered Cause of Loss.” The Policies also contain a Virus Exclusion clause, which
bars coverage “for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium
or other microorganism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress,
illness or disease.”
The Virus Exclusion clause clearly and unambiguously bars Plaintiffs’ claims
for losses or damages. Plaintiffs contend that COVID-19 government shutdown
orders—not the COVID-19 virus itself—caused their losses, so the Virus Exclusion
does not apply. We rejected these arguments in Mudpie. In that case, we held:
Though Mudpie argues it was the government orders that most directly
caused its injury, Mudpie does not plausibly allege that “the efficient
cause,” i.e., the one that set others in motion, was anything other than
the spread of the virus throughout California, or that the virus was
merely a remote cause of its losses. Accordingly, the Policy’s Virus
Exclusion bars coverage for Mudpie's claims.
2
Mudpie, 15 F.4th at 894 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that Mudpie
applied the incorrect legal standard under California law. But as a three-judge panel,
we cannot overrule our prior precedent. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899
(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
Because the Virus Exclusion clause independently bars Plaintiffs’ claims, we
do not address Plaintiffs’ other arguments.
AFFIRMED.
3