Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Butler v. Clarendon America Insurance
Citation: 317 F. App'x 648Docket: No. 07-16462
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 25, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Matt Butler, operator of San Rafael Yacht Harbor, appeals a district court's summary judgment favoring Clarendon America Insurance Company, which found that Butler's insurance policy did not cover injuries claimed by Lloyd Victor Ramirez due to Butler's intentional actions against Ramirez's interests. The court noted that the policy's Commercial General Liability Section I, Coverage A (CGL I-A) only covers bodily injury or property damage resulting from an 'accident,' defined by California courts as requiring unintentional acts. Ramirez's allegations detail intentional acts by Butler, including trespassing and converting Ramirez's property, which do not qualify as 'accidents' under the policy. Thus, CGL I-A did not trigger coverage, and Clarendon had no duty to defend Butler. Additionally, the Special Boat Dealer/Marina Coverage provision (Form HBDC) only covers direct physical loss or damage to Butler's own property, not allowing recovery for third parties like Ramirez. Finally, the Special Marina/Boat Repairs/Boat Dealers Legal Liability provision (Form HMOL) does not apply because it provides limited recovery for property damage to others' property only under specific circumstances, which were not present in this case. The court concluded that none of the policy provisions offered coverage for the claims made by Ramirez. Neither the Policy’s Protection and Indemnity Liability provision (Form HPIL) nor the Towers Liability Endorsement (Form HTOW) offers coverage for Ramirez’s injuries, as Butler failed to demonstrate any credible factual scenario that would trigger such coverage under these Forms. The Commercial General Liability Section I, Coverage B (CGL I-B) also does not cover Ramirez’s alleged injuries, which do not pertain to wrongful eviction claims since they lack an assertion of injury to real property. Furthermore, Clarendon did not breach its duty of good faith and fair dealing by not defending Butler against Ramirez, as Butler could not establish that Clarendon had a duty to defend. The insurer-insured relationship is characterized by unequal bargaining power rather than a true fiduciary relationship, thus any alleged breach of fiduciary-like duties is analyzed under the same standards as good faith claims. Ultimately, Butler's actions against Ramirez were intentional and do not fall within the Policy’s coverage provisions. The court affirmed the district court's decision, indicating that Ramirez's claims do not provide a basis for Butler to prevail against Clarendon. This disposition is not intended for publication and does not set a precedent.