Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-15785
D.C. No. 4:15-cv-02896-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 11, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GOULD, and DIAZ,** Circuit Judges.
This appeal involves a dispute between two insurance companies concerning
coverage of an underlying lawsuit in which a parking garage patron was severely
FILED
JUN 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Albert Diaz, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

injured. Defendant-Appellee Hudson Specialty Insurance Company (“Hudson”)
insured the company that leased the parking garage on a primary level, and
Plaintiff-Appellant Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Scottsdale”) insured the same
company on an excess level. This dispute centers upon whether the Hudson Policy
coverage had a $1 million limitation on liability as stated in the policy or whether
the Parking Operations Errors and Omissions Endorsement (“Endorsement”) added
an additional $1 million.
The District Court held that Coverage A of the Hudson Policy
unambiguously incorporates the Endorsement. The court further held that the
Endorsement is subject to Coverage A’s $1 million limitation on liability for “each
occurrence,” and that Hudson’s total liability for the occurrence involved in the
underlying lawsuit is therefore limited to $1 million.
Scottsdale on appeal contends that the Endorsement created claims-made
coverage that is separate from Coverage A’s occurrence-based coverage. The
Endorsement, however, explicitly states that it “amend[s]” Coverage A “to
include” the Endorsement. As Coverage A is occurrence-based coverage, the
Endorsement is likewise occurrence-based coverage that is subject to a $1 million
limitation on liability. Moreover, the Hudson Policy, including the endorsements,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

must be read as a whole. Adams v. Explorer Ins. Co., 132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 24, 33 (Ct.
App. 2003).
Even if the Hudson Policy were ambiguous, however, Scottsdale’s argument
would nevertheless fail. Although the declarations page of the Hudson Policy
states that the Endorsement covers “each claim” and that Coverage A covers “each
occurrence,” when the policy, including the endorsements, conflicts with the
declarations page, the policy language controls. See Hervey v. Mercury Cas. Co.,
110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 890, 898 (Ct. App. 2010) (“[A]ny ambiguity in the [d]eclaration
‘is resolved by’ the terms of the policy.” (quoting United Servs. Auto. Ass’n v.
Baggett, 258 Cal. Rptr. 52, 59 (Ct. App. 1989))). The language of the
Endorsement and Coverage A resolve any ambiguity in the declarations page.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --