Opinion of the Court — Granite Management Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 4, 2002
Case: Granite Management Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM ** Aetna Casualty Surety Company appeals a judgment in favor of Granite Management Corporation finding Aetna liable for bad faith and awarding substantial damages. Granite conditionally cross-appeals the dismissal of its claim for punitive damages. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. We thus dismiss Granite’s cross-appeal as moot. Because the facts and prior proceedings are known to the parties, we restate them only as necessary to explain our disposition. 1. Endorsement No. 5 The first issue is whether the trial court correctly determined as a matter of law, for purposes of Granite’s bad faith claim, that Endorsement No. 5 was ambiguous and created a duty for Aetna to defend Granite in the underlying “Smoke Tree litigation” (“Smoke Tree”). 1 Our answer is yes. The court reviews grants of summary judgment de novo. Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir.2001). “The meaning and interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law reviewed de novo.” HS *265 Servs., Inc. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 109 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.1997). There are two distinct but related ways to trigger a duty to defend. “An ins…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.