a Washington resident v. CATLIN SPECIALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) a foreign insurance company

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN C. MCRORY, ) No. 11-36084
a Washington resident; )
WILLIAM RADEMAKER, Jr., ) D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02095-RAJ
Washington citizen, )
) MEMORANDUM *
Plaintiffs – Appellants, )
)
v. )
)
CATLIN SPECIALTY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, )
a foreign insurance company, )
)
Defendant – Appellee. )
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 4, 2013 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
FILED
MAR 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

1 Overton v. Consol. Ins. Co., 38 P.3d 322, 325 (Wash. 2002); see also
Morgan v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 545 P.2d 1193, 1195 (Wash. 1976)
(construction must not be “strained or forced,” beyond the fair reach of the policy
terms, absurd, or nonsensical); Odessa Sch. Dist. No. 105 v. Ins. Co. of Am., 791
P.2d 237, 239–42 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (liberal construction used).
2 Boeing Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 784 P.2d 507, 513 (Wash. 1990);
CLE Elum Bowl, Inc. v. N. Pac. Ins. Co., Inc., 981 P.2d 872, 875 (Wash. Ct. App.
1999).
2
Edwin C. McRory and William Rademaker, Jr., appeal the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to Catlin Specialty Insurance Company (Catlin) on
their claims that Catlin, the insurer on a directors and officers policy (the Policy),
denied coverage and refused to defend. We affirm.
McRory and Rademaker issued personal guarantees for a loan that
Washington Trust Bank made to the company for which they were directors, PFH,
Inc. We agree with the district court that when the policy terms are given a “fair,
reasonable, and sensible construction,”1 and interpreted in a manner that an average
person reasonably would,2 the Policy does not cover the giving or breach of
obligations under the individual personal guarantees in this case. In no reasonable
sense could it be thought that the guarantees were encompassed by the Policy
terms. The guarantees were purely individual and were not actions by McRory and
Rademaker in their director capacities. Washington Trust did not sue them
because they were directors; it sued them because they were guarantors.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
By the same token, nothing in the Policy terms or in the claims made against
McRory and Rademaker by Washington Trust subtended a duty on the part of
Catlin to defend the action against them. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes,
Inc., 58 P.3d 276, 281–82 (Wash. 2002).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --