Opinion
No. 18-15668
05-16-2019
RLI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. CITY OF VISALIA, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; THE RIVERSTONE GROUP, Counter-defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01205-LJO-EPG MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
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).
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
The City of Visalia appeals from the district court's judgment on the pleadings for RLI Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Subsection (f)(2) of the excess insurance policy between RLI and Visalia excludes coverage "for the cost of removing, nullifying or cleaning up substances described in [(f)](1) above." The substances described in subsection (f)(1) are "smoke, vapors, soot, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, solids, liquids or gases, waste materials, or other irritants, contaminants or pollutants." Unlike subsection (f)(1), subsection (f)(2) does not include an exception to its exclusion for a "discharge, dispersal, release or escape" of such substances that "is sudden and accidental." Because the complaint in the underlying action sought recovery only for the costs of removing, nullifying, or cleaning up contaminants or pollutants, RLI has no duty to defend or indemnify Visalia in that action. See L.A. Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 869 F.3d 795, 805-06 (9th Cir. 2017).
The district court did not err in rejecting Visalia's request for judicial notice as irrelevant. --------
AFFIRMED.