You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Westport Insurance v. Anderson

Citation: 31 F. App'x 362Docket: No. 00-35704; D.C. No. CV-99-00485 (TSZ)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 13, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a dispute over insurance coverage between Westport Insurance Company and the insureds, operators of BluWater Bistro. The primary legal issue centered on whether Westport's liability insurance policy, which included a Designated Premises Endorsement for the Bistro in Seattle, covered an incident at a location 25 miles away. The insureds sought coverage for an accident that occurred during a company party at a beach home, arguing it was incidental to the Bistro's operations. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Westport, interpreting the insurance policy as a contract to be construed from the perspective of an average insurance purchaser. The court found that the accident was not incidental to the Bistro's operations, thus excluding coverage under the policy's endorsement. The summary judgment was subject to de novo review, with the court affirming the decision based on the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Consequently, the ruling was upheld, and the decision was not designated for publication due to citation restrictions under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Designated Premises Endorsement

Application: The policy's Designated Premises Endorsement was found to apply specifically to the BluWater Bistro and operations incidental to that location, excluding coverage for incidents occurring elsewhere.

Reasoning: Westport's liability insurance policy included a Designated Premises Endorsement specifically for the BluWater Bistro in Seattle and operations incidental to that location.

Interpretation of Insurance Contracts

Application: The court emphasized that insurance policies should be construed fairly and sensibly from the perspective of an average insurance purchaser.

Reasoning: The insurance policy was interpreted as a contract, emphasizing that it should be construed fairly and sensibly from the perspective of an average insurance purchaser.

Scope of Coverage in Liability Insurance

Application: The court concluded that the average person would not view the accident as incidental to the BluWater Bistro's operations, thus denying coverage.

Reasoning: The court concluded that the average person would not view the accident as incidental to the BluWater Bistro's operations.

Summary Judgment Standard

Application: The court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment, favoring the nonmoving party, and affirmed the judgment where no genuine issues of material fact were present.

Reasoning: The court conducted a de novo review of the summary judgment, favoring the nonmoving party and affirming the judgment where no genuine issues of material fact were present.