Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 14 August 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 07-56760.,07-56760. |
Citation | 563 F.3d 777 |
Parties | NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Kirk A. Pasich, Esq., Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Peter Abrahams, Esq., Encino, CA, for the defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-08444-DDP.
Before: CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and PAMELA ANN RYMER, Circuit Judges, and STEPHEN M. McNAMEE,* District Judge.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND AMENDED OPINION
The Opinion filed on August 14, 2008, 538 F.3d 1090, is amended as follows:
Slip Opinion page 10671, line 19, 538 F.3d at 1094, insert the following text: " Evans v. Safeco Life Ins. Co., 916 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Ellison, 757 F.2d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir.1985)).
Page 10672, line 6, 538 F.3d at 1095, replace "Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 988 So.2d. 186" with "Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 186".
Page 10673, line 1, 538 F.3d at 1095, insert the following text (beginning a new paragraph):
Page 10673, line 20, 538 F.3d at 1095, delete: "To begin with, we are not convinced by Northrop's argument that the primary and excess policies must be construed as one document."
Page 10673, line 26, 538 F.3d at 1095, replace "the primary policy may be consulted in interpreting the excess policy, we decline to treat the two documents as one contract." with "the primary policy must be consulted in interpreting the excess policy, see Cal. Civ.Code § 1642, we decline to treat the two documents as only one contract."
Page 10674, line 7, 538 F.3d at 1096, replace "that an ambiguity exists" with "that an ambiguity must exist".
Page 10674, line 14, 538 F.3d at 1096, replace "policy." with "policy, because the insured's interpretation was not reasonable under either definition."
Page 10674, line 16, 538 F.3d at 1096, insert the following text: "Similarly, under either definition of flood, Northrop's limited interpretation of the broad term `flood,' as excluding wind-driven flooding, is not reasonable."
Page 10674, line 17, 538 F.3d at 1096, move "Northrop relies on Powerine Oil" to begin a new paragraph.
Page 10676, line 13, insert the following text:
Page 10676, line 13, 538 F.3d at 1097, move "In addition" to begin a new paragraph.
Page 10676, line 17, 538 F.3d at 1097, insert the following text: "Neither has Northrop cited any cases holding that hurricane storm surge is not within the meaning of a flood exclusion, or holding that the phrase `whether driven by wind or not' is necessary to signify that storm surge is included within a flood exclusion."
Page 10677, line 18, 538 F.3d at 1098, insert the following text: "Moreover, even the definition of Named Windstorm noted that such storms can cause flood damage, only strengthening the argument that the lay interpretation of flood includes flooding caused by storm surge."
Page 10678, line 1, 538 F.3d at 1098, delete the following text:
Page 10678, line 1, 538 F.3d at 1098, insert the following text:
With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny appellee's petition for panel rehearing and has recommended denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained.
Factory Mutual Insurance Company appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Northrop Grumman Corporation. Northrop sued the insurance company after Factory Mutual denied coverage for water damage at Northrop's Mississippi subsidiary caused by Hurricane Katrina. Factory Mutual argued that coverage for water damage was barred by an exclusion for flooding in the policy, but the district court held that the exclusion was ambiguous and construed it in favor of Northrop. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Northrop, and remand for a determination of whether California's efficient proximate cause doctrine mandates coverage of the damage notwithstanding our interpretation of the contractual language.
Northrop Grumman is a global defense contractor with approximately 120,000 employees worldwide. Its Mississippi subsidiary, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, is headquartered in Pascagoula, Mississippi and has operations throughout the Gulf area. Northrop maintains a risk management department, and is represented by Aon Risk Services in the insurance marketplace.
Aon was responsible for brokering Northrop's property insurance for April 2005 to April 2006. In February 2005, Aon prepared and submitted an Underwriting Detail to prospective insurers. The Underwriting Detail explained that Northrop sought blanket insurance for $19.8 billion in properties, and proposed that the insurance be layered. The primary layer, termed "All Risk including Earthquake, Flood, Boiler & Machinery," would provide comprehensive property insurance with a general limit of $500 million, and certain sub-limits, such as a $400 million sublimit per flood occurrence. The excess layer, described as "All Risk including Boiler & Machinery (Excluding Earthquake and Flood)," would cover additional losses up to the $19.8 billion total value of Northrop's property, but would not include earthquake or flood coverage. The suggested premiums were $12,730,000 for the primary layer, and $950,000 for the excess layer.
Factory Mutual received the Underwriting Detail and provided Northrop with a quote for 15% participation in the first $100 million of the primary layer, and full participation in the excess layer. Northrop accepted the quote and Factory Mutual transmitted the primary and excess policies to Northrop.
The primary policy, derived from a hybrid Aon/Factory Mutual form,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Opara v. Yellen
...court. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, see Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co. , 563 F.3d 777, 783 (9th Cir. 2009), and "may affirm on any ground supported by the record even if it differs from the rationale of the distric......
- Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp. v. Ins. Co. of Pa.
-
Sanchez v. Takecare Ins. Co. Inc
...disease or condition developing in the course of a primary disease or condition." Id. at 236; see Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 563 F.3d 777, 784 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) ("[Dictionary definitions are an appropriate consideration in evaluating the ordinary meaning of terms in ......
-
Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co.
...Circuit reversed, holding that the Excess Policy's flood exclusion encompassed storm surge damage. See Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 563 F.3d 777, 788 (9th Cir.2009). Presently before the court are the parties cross-motions for summary adjudication. First, the parties dis......
-
Chapter 4
...Co. v. Boardwalk Apartments, L.C., 572 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2009). Ninth Circuit: Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 563 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2009); Gemini Insurance Co. v. Western Marine Insurance Services Corp., 2012 WL 2934657 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); Fireman’s Fund In......
-
CHAPTER 4 First-Party Insurance
...Co. v. Boardwalk Apartments, L.C., 572 F.3d 511 (8th Cir. 2009). Ninth Circuit: Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., 563 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2009); Gemini Insurance Co. v. Western Marine Insurance Services Corp., 2012 WL 2934657 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2012); Fireman’s Fund In......
-
CHAPTER § 5.02 Basic Insurance Concepts
...Northrop Grumman Corp. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 538 F.3d 1090, 1094 (9th Cir. 2008), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh'g, 563 F.3d 777 (9th Cir. 2009); see also, e.g., Admiral Indem. Co. v. Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 881 F. Supp.2d 570, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("The Court ......