AQUA STAR (USA) CORP., a subsidiary of Admiralty Island Fisheries, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AQUA STAR (USA) CORP., a subsidiary
of Admiralty Island Fisheries, Inc.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35614
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01368-RSL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 12, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,** District Judge.
Aqua Star (USA) Corp. (“Aqua Star”) appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
(“Travelers”) in an insurance dispute over whether a Travelers “Computer Fraud”
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
policy covers Aqua Star’s losses from a fraudulent email scheme. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The parties agree that Washington law governs the interpretation of the
contract. In Washington, “[a]n insurance policy is construed as a whole, with the
policy being given a fair, reasonable, and sensible construction as would be given
to the contract by the average person purchasing insurance.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 142 Wash. 2d 654, 666 (2000), as amended (Jan. 16,
2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). We “must” enforce “clear and
unambiguous” policy language “as written.” Id. Applying these principles, even
assuming without deciding that the policy generally covers “Computer Fraud” of
the kind that duped Aqua Star, the policy’s exclusions foreclose coverage.
Exclusion G unambiguously provides that the policy “will not apply to loss
or damages resulting directly or indirectly from the input of Electronic Data by a
natural person having the authority to enter the Insured’s Computer System . . . .”
Aqua Star’s losses resulted from employees authorized to enter its computer
system changing wiring information and sending four payments to a fraudster’s
account. These employees “ha[d] the authority to enter” Aqua Star’s system when
they “input” Electronic Data, on Aqua Star computers, to change the wiring
information and authorize the four wires. Their conduct fits squarely within the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Exclusion. While other contractual exclusions may also bar coverage in this case,
we need not go any further.
Washington’s rule of efficient proximate cause does not help Aqua Star
because that rule “applies only when two or more perils combine in sequence to
cause a loss and a covered peril is the predominant or efficient cause of the loss.”
Vision One, LLC v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 174 Wash. 2d 501, 519 (2012)
(first emphasis added). Where, as here, there is only one “peril”—Computer
Fraud—“[a]n insured may not avoid a contractual exclusion merely by affixing an
additional label or separate characterization to the act or event causing the loss.”
Kish v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 125 Wash. 2d 164, 170 (1994).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --