Intransit, Inc. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America

Ninth Circuit

Intransit, Inc. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America

583 F. App'x 798

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 25, 2014

Docket13-35002

StatusUnpublished

This text of 583 F. App'x 798 (Intransit, Inc. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America) 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

Intransit, Inc. v. Travelers Property & Casualty Company of America, 583 F. App'x 798 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

The district court erred in granting In-transit, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and denying Travelers Property and Casualty Co.’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Under Oregon law, ambiguous terms in insurance contracts are interpreted to the benefit of the insured. Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 313 Or. 464, 836 P.2d 703, 706-07 (1992) (en banc). The district court properly concluded that the term “carrier” is ambiguous and must therefore include both fraudulent and legitimate motor transportation companies. But the district court erred by not giving the term “carrier” the same meaning when construing the policy’s exclusion for carrier dishonesty. Nothing in the insurance agreement “clearly indicat[es]” an intent to define the term “carrier” differently in the coverage and exclusions provisions. Schweigert v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co., 204 Or. 294, 282 P.2d 621, 626 (1955). Absent such a clear indication, Oregon courts presume that a term has a consistent meaning throughout an insurance contract. See id. at 625-26. The criminal acts of the fraudulent “carrier” that resulted in the loss are therefore subject to the exclusion. However, Intransit is entitled to recover the $50,000 provided by the “‘Carrier’ Dishonesty” endorsement.

In light of our holding, the district court’s award of attorney’s fees must be reversed. Intransit’s recovery does not exceed the $50,000 tender that Travelers made prior to the suit. Intransit is therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.061(1).

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Intransit in the amount of $50,000.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM *

The district court erred in granting In-transit, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and denying Travelers Property and Casualty Co.’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Under Oregon law, ambiguous terms in insurance contracts are interpreted to the benefit of the insured. Hoffman Constr. Co. v. Fred S. James & Co., 313 Or. 464, 836 P.2d 703, 706-07 (1992) (en banc). The district court properly concluded that the term “carrier” is ambiguous and must therefore include both fraudulent and legitimate motor transportation companies. But the district court erred by not giving the term “carrier” the same meaning when construing the policy’s exclusion for carrier dishonesty. Nothing in the insurance agreement “clearly indicat[es]” an intent to define the term “carrier” differently in the coverage and exclusions provisions. Schweigert v. Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co., 204 Or. 294, 282 P.2d 621, 626 (1955). Absent such a clear indication, Oregon courts presume that a term has a consistent meaning throughout an insurance contract. See id. at 625-26. The criminal acts of the fraudulent “carrier” that resulted in the loss are therefore subject to the exclusion. However, Intransit is entitled to recover the $50,000 provided by the “‘Carrier’ Dishonesty” endorsement.

In light of our holding, the district court’s award of attorney’s fees must be reversed. Intransit’s recovery does not exceed the $50,000 tender that Travelers made prior to the suit. Intransit is therefore not entitled to attorney’s fees. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 742.061(1).

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Intransit in the amount of $50,000.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

583 F. App'x 798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/intransit-inc-v-travelers-property-casualty-company-of-america-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack