Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94-55943
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | BRIGHT |
| Citation | 80 F.3d 336 |
| Parties | 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1974, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3349 Charles H. CAHILL; Aniko Der Cahill, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 94-55943,94-55943 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1996 |
Page 336
D.A.R. 3349
v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant-Appellee.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided March 25, 1996.
John T. Wise, Stegman & Wise, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Susan T. Olson and Lisa M. Kralik, Grace, Skocypec, Cosgrove & Schirm, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV-92-03518-R(JR); Manuel L. Real, Chief Judge, Presiding.
Page 337
Before BRIGHT *, SKOPIL, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges.
BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge:
Charles and Aniko Cahill filed suit against Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. (Liberty), seeking to recover from Liberty the amount of an existing default judgment obtained in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Associated Farm Management, Inc. (AFM). Upon remand from this court, the district court 1 dismissed the complaint without leave to amend, determining that the Cahills could not bring a direct action against Liberty, and that the "advertising injury" clause of the insurance policy did not cover the damages granted by the default judgment. On appeal, the Cahills argue that the district court should not have dismissed the case. We affirm on the basis that the policy does not cover the Cahills' claim.
For the purposes of this appeal we assume the following facts: Although AFM's business primarily consisted of the management of agricultural properties owned by others, it also marketed agricultural properties as an adjunct to its primary business. In July of 1983, the Cahills bought certain agricultural property known as Valley View Farms from a third party. AFM participated in the marketing and advertising of that property. The investment prospectus AFM provided the Cahills contained numerous misrepresentations and omissions upon which the Cahills relied.
In September 1986, the Cahills filed a lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against AFM and other related defendants based upon their purchase of Valley View Farms. AFM is insured by Liberty under an umbrella excess liability policy. Although AFM has other policies, this appeal regards only the umbrella excess liability policy.
Although AFM apparently failed to notify Liberty of the suit, the Cahills' attorney did inform Liberty of the litigation. Liberty did not participate in the suit. AFM failed to mount a defense, and the court entered a default judgment in favor of the Cahills on their claims of negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, and negligence among others. Cahill v. A. Duda & Sons, Inc., L.A.S.C. Case No. 616848.
The Cahills then brought this action against Liberty alleging breach of contract for failure to provide coverage and seeking to satisfy the default judgment from the insurance policy. The Cahills claimed that AFM's liability for the default judgment is covered by the advertising injury provision of the umbrella excess liability policy. Liberty filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without leave to amend.
On appeal, this court vacated the district court's order and remanded in an unpublished memorandum opinion. Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 24 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. April 20, 1994) (No. 92-56280). We determined that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend without stating the reasons for that denial, and remanded for a statement of reasons supporting denial of leave to amend. We did not reach the merits of the dismissal.
On remand, the district court reinstated its judgment of dismissal and filed a twelve-point statement of reasons. Basically, the district court determined that (1) the Cahills could not bring a direct action against Liberty and (2) the damages sought and awarded in the default judgment were not covered under the insurance policy.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Stone v. Travelers Corp., 58 F.3d 434, 436-37 (9th Cir.1995); Franceschi v. Schwartz, 57 F.3d 828, 830 (9th Cir.1995). All allegations of material fact are taken as
Page 338
true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. National Wildlife Federation v. Espy, 45 F.3d 1337, 1340 (9th Cir.1995). A complaint should not be dismissed unless a plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir.1995).In their complaint, the Cahills assert that their claims against AFM are covered under the "advertising injury" clause in Liberty's umbrella...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
James v. Group, Case No.: 14-CV-1756-AJB-JMA.
...of all factual allegations and must construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court need not take legal conclusions as true "merely because they are cast in the form of factual allega......
-
Tietsworth v. Sears, Case No. 5:09-CV-00288 JF (HRL).
...light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1998), see also Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). However, the Court need not accept as true allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreaso......
-
Grant v. Aurora Loan Serv., Inc., Case No. CV 09-08174 MM(CTx)
...them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of736 F.Supp.2d 1266the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996); Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1995). The court need not, however, accept as true unreasonable inferences or con......
-
Survine v. Cottle, CASE NO. CV F 12-1453 LJO JLT
...(3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, a court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deduction......
-
James v. Group, Case No.: 14-CV-1756-AJB-JMA.
...of all factual allegations and must construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 336, 337–38 (9th Cir. 1996). However, the court need not take legal conclusions as true "merely because they are cast in the form of factual allega......
-
Tietsworth v. Sears, Case No. 5:09-CV-00288 JF (HRL).
...light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pareto v. FDIC, 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir.1998), see also Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996). However, the Court need not accept as true allegations that are conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreaso......
-
Grant v. Aurora Loan Serv., Inc., Case No. CV 09-08174 MM(CTx)
...them and draw all reasonable inferences from them in favor of736 F.Supp.2d 1266the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir.1996); Mier v. Owens, 57 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir.1995). The court need not, however, accept as true unreasonable inferences or con......
-
Survine v. Cottle, CASE NO. CV F 12-1453 LJO JLT
...(3) determine whether plaintiff can prove any set of facts to support a claim that would merit relief. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-338 (9th Cir. 1996). Nonetheless, a court is not required "to accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deduction......
-
Table of Cases
...Corp. v. Yamulla Enterprises, Inc. , 194 F.R.D. 499, 47 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 450 (M.D. Pa. 2000), §4:109 Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996), Form 7-42 Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole-CNCA New York Branch v. Valcorp, Inc. , 28 F.3d 259 (2nd Cir. 1994), Form ......
-
Motions
...would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson , 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L.Ed.2d 80, 78 S.Ct. 99 (1957); Cahill v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. , 80 F.3d 336, 338 (9th Cir. 1996). In deciding such a motion, all material allegations of the complaint are accepted as true, as well as all reasonable i......