Groves v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

Ninth Circuit

Groves v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

104 F. App'x 651

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 10, 2004

DocketNo. 03-35260. D.C. No. CV-02-02119-TSZ

StatusPublished

This text of 104 F. App'x 651 (Groves v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Groves v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 104 F. App'x 651 (9th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

***

James and Mickey Groves appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment. We affirm the district court.

[652]*652Neither the shipping nor the subsequent destruction of the computer equipment was an accident or otherwise performed unintentionally. Thus, there was no “occurrence” that would trigger coverage under the liability insurance policy.¹ Even if these events constituted an “occurrence,” the policy’s ownership exclusion applies because James Groves and his partner jointly owned the equipment.²

Because we hold that the Groves are not entitled to insurance coverage, their bad faith claim necessarily fails.³ The remainder of the Groves’ arguments are merit-less.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

¹

. Compare Dewitt Constr. Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a subcontractor’s negligent acts were an "occurrence”), with Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler, 118 Wash.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499, 502, 509 (1992) (holding that intentionally shooting at a car was not an "occurrence,” even though the shooter did not intend for a ricocheting bullet to hit an occupant), and Grange Ins. Co. v. Brosseau, 113 Wash.2d 91, 776 P.2d 123, 124 — 27 (1989) (holding that shooting an assailant in self-defense was not an "occurrence” because it was an intentional act, not an accident), and Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wilker, 96 Wash.App. 87, 977 P.2d 677, 679—680 (1999) (holding that the witnessing of a child being molested by the child's friend was neither an accident nor an “occurrence”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

***

James and Mickey Groves appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment. We affirm the district court.

[652]*652Neither the shipping nor the subsequent destruction of the computer equipment was an accident or otherwise performed unintentionally. Thus, there was no “occurrence” that would trigger coverage under the liability insurance policy.¹ Even if these events constituted an “occurrence,” the policy’s ownership exclusion applies because James Groves and his partner jointly owned the equipment.²

Because we hold that the Groves are not entitled to insurance coverage, their bad faith claim necessarily fails.³ The remainder of the Groves’ arguments are merit-less.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

¹

. Compare Dewitt Constr. Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1127, 1133 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that a subcontractor’s negligent acts were an "occurrence”), with Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Butler, 118 Wash.2d 383, 823 P.2d 499, 502, 509 (1992) (holding that intentionally shooting at a car was not an "occurrence,” even though the shooter did not intend for a ricocheting bullet to hit an occupant), and Grange Ins. Co. v. Brosseau, 113 Wash.2d 91, 776 P.2d 123, 124 — 27 (1989) (holding that shooting an assailant in self-defense was not an "occurrence” because it was an intentional act, not an accident), and Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Wilker, 96 Wash.App. 87, 977 P.2d 677, 679—680 (1999) (holding that the witnessing of a child being molested by the child's friend was neither an accident nor an “occurrence”).

Dewitt Construction Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company Travelers Property Casualty Corporation Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Opus Northwest Llc, Third-Party-Plaintiff. Dewitt Construction Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company Travelers Property Casualty Corporation Travelers Indemnity Company of America v. Opus Northwest Llc, Third-Party-Plaintiff

307 F.3d 1127 (Third Circuit, 2002)

Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Butler

823 P.2d 499 (Washington Supreme Court, 1992)

Grange Insurance Co. v. Brosseau

776 P.2d 123 (Washington Supreme Court, 1989)

Overton v. Consolidated Ins. Co.

38 P.3d 322 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)

Overton v. Consolidated Insurance

38 P.3d 322 (Washington Supreme Court, 2002)

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. English Cove Associates, Inc.

88 P.3d 986 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2004)

American Economy Insurance v. Estate of Wilker

977 P.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. App'x 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/groves-v-state-farm-fire-casualty-co-ca9-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack