Sydney Holland, an individual v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SYDNEY HOLLAND, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-55680
D.C. No.
2:19-cv-02604-SVW-RAO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Sydney Holland appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of
Travelers Commercial Insurance Company on her breach of contract claim.
Holland alleges that Travelers breached its duty to defend her in a lawsuit brought
* 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).
FILED
APR 9 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 of 2
by her former fiancé, Sumner Redstone. We affirm.
An insurer’s duty to defend in California is broad, but not limitless. To be
relieved of its duty, the insurer must prove that no potential for coverage exists
under the policy. Pension Trust Fund for Operating Eng’rs v. Fed. Ins. Co., 307
F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, Travelers had to show that “the facts alleged
in the underlying suit can by no conceivable theory raise a single issue that could
bring it within the policy coverage.” Id.
Travelers made that showing here. None of the facts alleged in the Redstone
complaint could conceivably trigger coverage under the relevant Travelers
homeowners policies. The gravamen of the complaint is that Holland intentionally
participated in a willful and fraudulent scheme to acquire Redstone’s considerable
assets by taking “near total control” of his life. The facts alleged support claims
founded only upon intentional conduct, which is excluded from coverage under the
policies. Holland relies on unpleaded claims for false imprisonment or negligence,
but even those claims could not give rise to the potential for coverage because they
would be “inseparably intertwined” with the noncovered intentional conduct
alleged in the complaint. Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Barbara B., 846 P.2d 792, 798
(Cal. 1993).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --