Impress Communications, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IMPRESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-56203
D.C. No.
19-cv-9396-MWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 18, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY, ** District
Judge.
Travelers Property Casualty Co. issued an insurance policy to Impress
Communications, Inc. that covered printing errors. Impress received two purchase
orders totaling over $1 million from Jeunesse Global to print more than 500,000 gold
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
boxes, silver boxes, and inserts, which Jeunesse intended to use to package and
market a shampoo line at a trade show. Jeunesse rejected most of what Impress
shipped because of printing defects. Impress reprinted the items and expedited their
delivery.
Impress then filed claims with Travelers to cover its expenses for reprinting
the items. Impress relied on a provision that insured it for “product recall” created
by a “wrongful act” when providing “printing services or products.” The coverage
was subject to an “Each Wrongful Act Limit” of $100,000 and included the
following definition for “wrongful act”:
Means any negligent act, error or omission committed by or on behalf
of the insured. A series of negligent acts, errors or omissions that have
as a common connection, tie, or link any fact, circumstance, situation,
event, transaction, cause, or series of related facts, circumstances,
situations, events, transactions, or causes will be considered a single
“wrongful act,” and will be deemed to have been committed at the time
the first such negligent act, error or omission is committed.
Impress made three separate claims, contending that there were three distinct
printing errors, one for each product, meaning it was entitled to three separate
recoveries. This would have resulted in reimbursement of nearly $200,000, less the
policy’s deductible for each error. Travelers concluded, however, that the printing
errors qualified as a single wrongful act under the policy and accordingly reimbursed
Impress $100,000—the amount for a single claim.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Impress sued Travelers, alleging that Travelers had breached the terms of their
contract and acted in bad faith. The district court granted Travelers’ motion for
summary judgment, holding that Impress’s insurance claim for three separate
printing errors was limited by the policy’s wrongful act provision. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and can
affirm on any ground the record supports. Maner v. Dignity Health, 9 F.4th 1114,
1119 (9th Cir. 2021). We view evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party. Csutoras v. Paradise High Sch., 12 F.4th 960, 965 (9th Cir.
2021).
The crux of the parties’ dispute is whether Impress’s three printing errors
constituted one or more than one wrongful act. Impress argues that the three errors
themselves—problems with color variation, coating and overprint production
defects, and foiling production defects—established that they were separate
wrongful acts. Impress also points to the fact that the products were printed on
different machines, by different people, using different processes.
The policy language, however, is sufficiently broad to encompass the logical
connections between the errors. All three errors “have as a common connection”
“related . . . transactions.” The items Impress was printing were ordered during a
short period; were intended for a single product line; largely involved different parts

-- 3 of 5 --

4
of packaging of single items (boxes and inserts); and shared an expedited shipping
timeline because they were to be used at a single trade show. Notably, the purchase
order for 330,000 silver boxes and inserts treated the two items as one product. The
district court’s analysis, though not binding given the de novo review standard, is
apt: “The putative lack of a causal connection does not erase the clear logical
connection these errors share: they were each made while manufacturing Packaging
for one customer’s line of Shampoo products.” ER 11; see also Bay Cities Paving
& Grading, Inc. v. Lawyers’ Mut. Ins. Co., 5 Cal. 4th 854, 873 (1993) (holding that
a policy provision limiting reimbursement of related claims “encompasse[d] both
logical and causal connections”).
It may be true, as Impress suggests, that the policy language in this case might
be overly inclusive in other situations. But the facts of this case do not approach
those margins. This Court need only decide whether the wrongful act provision
applies “in the context of this policy and the circumstances of this case.” Id. at 868.
Travelers correctly interpreted the policy as applied to the very closely connected
circumstances presented.
Because Travelers satisfied its coverage obligation, Impress is not entitled to
punitive damages, and its bad faith claim fails as a matter of law. Love v. Fire Ins.
Exch., 221 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1153 (1990) (holding that “a bad faith claim cannot
be maintained unless policy benefits are due”).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --