Hollyway Cleaners & Laundry Company Inc et al v. Central National Insurance Company of Omaha Inc et al

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the absence of Defendants duty to defend. As a result, the Court need not address issues of breach and bad faith. For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and GRANTS Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 17, 23.) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (shb)

O

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

LAUNDRY COMPANY, INC.; MILTON ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
CHORTKOFF; BURTON CHORTKOFF; MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
EDYTHE CHORTKOFF; WILMA

JUDGMENT [17] AND GRANTING

CHORTKOFF,

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [23]

Plaintiffs,

16
17

Case No. 2:13-cv-07497-ODW(Ex)

HOLLYWAY CLEANERS &

v.
CENTRAL NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF OMAHA, INC.,
Defendant.
I.

INTRODUCTION

The instant action arises from an insurance coverage dispute between insureds,
Plaintiffs Hollyway Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., Milton Chortkoff, Burton Chortkoff,
Edythe Chortkoff and Wilma Chortkoff, and their carrier, Defendant Central National
Insurance Company of Omaha, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege Defendant breached, and

continues to breach, its duty to defend in an underlying action potentially covered by
their insurance policy. Defendant contends there is no duty to defend because the
policy does not cover the environmental damage in the underlying action. Plaintiffs

1

filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Defendant filed a Motion for

2

Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 17, 23.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

3

DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion and GRANTS Defendant’s Motion.1
II.

4
5

A.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Policy

6

Central National Insurance Company of Omaha, Inc. (“CNI”) issued a standard

7

comprehensive general liability insurance policy (“the Policy”) to Hollyway Cleaners

8

& Laundry Co., Inc. (“Hollyway”), Milton Chortkoff, and Burton Chortkoff. (P. SUF

9

¶ 1.) Under the Policy, Milton and Burton Chortkoff’s wives, Edythe Chortkoff and

10

Wilma Chortkoff, are also insureds.2 (Id. ¶ 2.)

11

Originally, the Policy was issued for a three-year period from November 1,

12

1983 to November 1, 1986, but was cancelled on November 1, 1985. (Id. ¶ 3.) The

13

Policy limits liability to $500,000 per occurrence, in the aggregate, and per year. (Id.

14

¶ 4.) According to the Policy:

15

CN will pay on behalf of the Insured all sums which the
Insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages of
. . . property damage to which this insurance applies, caused
by an occurrence and arising out of the ownership,
maintenance or use of the insured premises and all
operations necessary or incidental to the business of the
Named Insured at or from the insured premises, and CN
shall have the right and duty to defend any suit against the
Insured, seeking damages on account of such . . . property
damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are
groundless, false, or fraudulent. . . .

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(Id. ¶ 5.) The Policy contains a “chemical discharge exclusion,” which provides that:

25
26
1

27
28

After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and opposition to the Motions, the Court
deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.
2
To avoid confusion, the Court references individual Plaintiffs by their first name since they all
share the same last name.

2

[t]his insurance does not apply * * * to . . . property damage
arising out of the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of
smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acids, alkalies, toxic chemicals,
liquids or gases, waste materials or other irritants,
contaminants or pollutants into or upon land, the atmosphere
or any water course or body of water, but this exclusion does
not apply if such discharge, dispersal, release or escape is
sudden and accidental.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

(Id. ¶ 6.)

8

B.

The Underlying Action

9

On February 4, 2013, Echo Complex, Inc. (“Echo”) filed suit in Los Angeles

10

Superior Court—Echo Complex, Inc. v. Hollyway Cleaners & Laundry Co., Inc., et

11

al., No BC500453 (“Underlying Action”). (Id. ¶ 7.) Hollyway and the Chortkoffs

12

were sued for allegedly causing environmental contamination to the soil and

13

groundwater at and around the site where their dry cleaning business was located. (Id.

14

¶ 12.)

15

contribution under California’s Hazardous Substance Account Act; (2) negligence; (3)

16

trespass; (4) nuisance; and (5) declaratory relief.3 (Id. ¶ 8.)

The complaint states the following causes of actions: (1) indemnity and

17

Echo owns the property located at 1157-1159 Echo Park Avenue, Los Angeles,

18

California, a multi-unit commercial property with a dry cleaner since at least 1941.

19

(Id. ¶ 10.)

20

(“Amersi”), Valetor, Inc. (“Valetor”), Charlie Yi, and Song Yi, are the former owners

21

and operators of the dry cleaner; Hollyway operated the dry cleaner from 1946

22

through 1985; the soil and groundwater on and around the property are contaminated

23

with PCE—a dry cleaning solvent and “hazardous substance” under relevant law;

24

such contamination was accidentally, negligently, recklessly, and/or deliberately

25

caused by all or some of the defendants during their respective ownership and/or

26

operation of the property; the contamination has migrated to, and damaged, other

Echo alleges that Defendants, including Hollyway, Fatehali Amersi

27
28

3

On August 6, 2013, Echo amended its Complaint and added Milton and Burton as defendants. (Id.
¶ 24.)

3

1

properties and will continue to migrate to, and damage, other properties until it is

2

remediated; and defendants are liable for indemnity or contribution to address the

3

contamination. (Id. ¶¶ 10–15.)

4

On May 29, 2013, Amersi and Valetor filed a cross-complaint against cross-

5

defendants Hollyway, Hollyway Real Property & Development Corporation, Milton,

6

Burton, Edythe, and Wilma. (Id. ¶ 16.) The cross-complaint states the following

7

causes of action: (1) breach of a stipulated judgment; (2) express indemnity; (3)

8

implied equitable indemnity; and (4) contribution. (Id. ¶ 17.)

9

Amersi and Valetor allege that Hollyway owned and operated a dry cleaning

10

business on the property; Milton and Edythe own 50 percent of Hollyway shares;

11

Burton and Wilma also own Hollyway shares; the Chortkoffs assumed all liabilities of

12

Hollyway upon its dissolution; and “[t]he liability that either of Cross-Complainants

13

may have, if any, to any person or governmental entity . . . related to the pollution of

14

the property, is the result of Cross-Defendants’ active intentional or negligent conduct

15

which took place prior to Cross-Defendant Valetor’s possession and occupancy of the

16

property.” (Id. ¶¶ 18–22.) Amersi and Valetor amended their cross-complaint twice,

17

and the court in the Underlying Action dismissed their final pleading. (Id. ¶¶ 25–27.)

18

On April 30, 2014, Charlie Yi and Song Yi filed a cross-complaint against

19

cross-defendants Hollyway, Milton, Burton, Amersi, and Valetor. (Id. ¶ 28.) The

20

cross-complaint states the following causes of action: (1) equitable indemnity; (2)

21

contribution/comparative indemnity; and (3) declaratory relief. (Id.

22

alleges that cross-defendants caused or contributed to the presence of hazardous

23

materials in, on and under the property by negligently or recklessly causing or

24

permitting sudden or accidental discharges of hazardous material through their acts or

25
26

omissions. (Id. ¶ 30.)
On June 17, 2014, the parties requested the court in the Underlying Action

27

vacate the November 14, 2014 trial date so they could investigate and remediate the

28

property, as required by an oversight agency, and negotiate a cost-sharing settlement

4

¶ 29.) Yi

1

agreement to avoid the need for trial. (Id. ¶ 34.) On June 20, 2014, the court vacated

2

the trial date. (Id. ¶ 35.)

3

C.

Coverage Dispute and Instant Action

4

Three days after Echo filed suit, Bret Stone, Cumis counsel for Hollyway,

5

tendered the complaint to CNI. (Id. ¶ 36.) “CNI agreed to defend Hollyway, under a

6

reservation of rights, in its capacity as a dissolved corporation.” (Lowe Decl., Ex. H.)4

7

After the individual Chortkoffs were added as defendants in the Underlying Action,

8

CNI denied that it had any duty to “fund a defense in which the interests of the

9

individual Chortkoffs, whom CNI was not defending, were prioritized over the

10

different and conflicting interests of Hollyway as a dissolved corporation, which CNI

11
12

was defending.” (Lowe Decl., Ex. I; 5/28/14 Ogle Depo. p. 70, lines 5–25, p. 72, line
7 to p. 74, line 18, p. 75, lines 15–22.)

13

According to CNI, the Underlying Action “is directly related” to a 1989 federal

14
15
16
17

lawsuit—Sunset/Echo Corporation v. Hollyway Real Estate and Development, et al.,
No. 89-1490 WMB (“1989 Action”). (D. Mot. 1.) CNI alleges that, during their
depositions, Milton and Burton could not recall any chemical leaks or spills at the

18

property, including any spills resulting from the delivery of chemicals, transfer of

19

clothes from the cleaner to the dryer, or from an earthquake or any other natural event.

20

(Id. at 2.) CNI further alleges that Milton and Burton admitted that “the regular

21

practice at Hollyway Cleaners was the intentional and deliberate disposal of the

22

chemical waste – i.e. ‘muck’ – and/or the filters containing the chemical waste into the

23

dumpster and other trash receptacles on the Subject Property.” (Id.) “CNI ultimately

24
25
26
27
28

4

In a seven-page letter dated April 19, 2013, Jeffrey Ogle, CNI’s Senior Vice President, detailed the
allegations against Hollyway, provided excerpts of the Policy, including the chemical discharge
exclusion, and explained that CNI would not defend the individual Chortkoffs should they become
parties to the litigation. Ogle stated: “Notwithstanding the above, CN does agree to defend
Hollyway Cleaners & Laundry Co., Inc. and will allow you to represent Hollyway Cleaners &
Laundry Co., Inc. pursuant to Civil Code, Section 2860 under a FULL AND COMPLETE
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF CN.” (Lowe Decl., Ex. H.)

5

1

became aware of this deposition testimony and relied on the evidence provided therein

2

as part of its evaluation of the duty to defend [Hollyway and the Chortkoffs] in the

3

Underlying Case.” (Id.)

4

On September 23, 2013, Hollyway and the Chortkoffs filed suit against CNI in

5

Los Angeles Superior Court for: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of contract; (3)

6

breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) unjust

7

enrichment. (ECF No. 1.) On October 9, 2013, CNI removed the action to federal

8

court. (Id.)

9

On July 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

10

(ECF No. 17.) Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their first three causes of action

11
12
13

on the grounds that: (1) Defendant has a duty to defend Hollyway and the Chortkoffs
against the complaint and cross-complaints filed in the Underlying Action; (2)
Defendant breached, and continues to breach, its duty to defend; and (3) Defendant’s

14
15
16
17

breach was in bad faith. (P. Mot. 2.) This Motion is currently before the Court for
decision.
On July 24, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

18

23.) Defendant seeks summary judgment and opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion on the same

19

grounds: “there has never been a duty to defend because the extrinsic evidence

20

available to CNI conclusively demonstrates that the environmental damage alleged in

21

the Underlying Case is not covered” under the terms of the Policy’s chemical

22

discharge exclusion. (D. Mot. 1; D. Opp’n 2.) The Motion is also currently before the

23

Court for decision.

24

On November 25, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application requesting the

25

Court stay portions of its ruling on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and

26

portions of its ruling on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No.

27

53.) The Court stayed the matter in its entirety. (ECF No. 56.) On January 1, 2015,

28

Plaintiffs filed an Ex Parte Application for Reconsideration, which the Court denied.

6

1

(ECF Nos. 57, 59.) On February 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Lift the Stay of

2

the Entire Action, which the Court granted. (ECF No. 60, 64.)

3

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

4

Summary judgment is appropriate if, viewing the evidence and drawing all

5

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no

6

genuine disputed issues of material fact, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

7

matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322

8

(1986). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the

9

governing law,” and a dispute as to a material fact is “genuine” if there is sufficient

10

evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to decide in favor of the nonmoving party.

11
12
13

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “If the evidence is merely
colorable, or is not significantly probative,” the Court may grant summary judgment.
Id. at 249–50 (citation omitted). At the summary judgment stage, the Court “does not

14
15
16
17

assess credibility or weigh the evidence, but simply determines whether there is a
genuine factual issue for trial.” House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 559–60 (2006).
The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issue

18

of fact for trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. To meet its burden, “the moving party must

19

either produce evidence negating an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim

20

or defense or show that the nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an

21

essential element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at trial.” Nissan Fire &

22

Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).

23

Once the moving party satisfies its initial burden of production, the burden shifts to

24

the nonmoving party to show that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 1103.

25

“It is well-settled in this circuit and others that the filing of cross-motions for

26

summary judgment, both parties asserting that there are no uncontested issues of

27

material fact, does not vitiate the court's responsibility to determine whether disputed

28

issues of material fact are present. A summary judgment cannot be granted if a

7

1

genuine issue as to any material fact exists.” United States v. Fred A. Arnold, Inc.,

2

573 F.2d 605, 606 (9th Cir.1978).
IV.

3

DISCUSSION

4

In their respective Motions for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs and Defendant

5

address: (1) whether Defendant has a duty to defend; (2) whether Defendant breached,

6

and continues to breach, that duty; and (3) whether Defendant’s breach was in bad

7

faith.

8

A. Duty to Defend

9

Plaintiffs allege there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding

10

Defendant’s duty to defend. (P. Mot. 14.) Defendant concedes the Policy includes a

11
12
13

duty to defend; however, Defendant contends that extrinsic evidence “conclusively
demonstrates there were no sudden or accidental discharges of chemicals into the
ground and thus . . . the claims against Plaintiffs in the Underlying Case cannot be

14
15
16
17
18

covered by the Policy.” (D. Opp’n 5.)
A federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction applies federal procedural law
and state substantive law.

Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

Therefore, in the instant diversity action, the Court applies California substantive law.

19

“The duty to defend is determined by reference to the policy, the complaint, and

20

all facts known to the insurer from any source.” Montrose Chem. Corp. v. Superior

21

Court, 6 Cal. 4th 287, 295 (1993) (quoting Gray v. Zurich Ins. Co., 65 Cal. 2d 263,

22

276–77 (1966)) (original emphasis). Whether an insurer has a duty to defend turns on

23

“those facts known by the insurer at the inception of a third party lawsuit, even though

24

the face of the complaint does not reflect a potential for liability under the policy.” Id.

25

at 295 (quoting Saylin v. California Ins. Guarantee Assn., 179 Cal. App. 3d 256, 263

26

(1986)). Thus, “the insurer must defend in some lawsuits where liability under the

27

policy fails to materialize.” Id. at 299 (citing Gray, 65 Cal. 2d at 263). “Any doubt as

28

to whether the facts establish the existence of the defense duty must be resolved in the

8

1

insured’s favor.” Id. at 299–300.
The insured and the insurer do not bear the same burden of proof in an action

2
3

seeking declaratory relief on the issue of the duty to defend:
[t]o prevail, the insured must prove the existence of a
potential for coverage, while the insurer must establish the
absence of any such potential. In other words, the insured
need only show that the underlying claim may fall within
policy coverage; the insurer must prove it cannot. Facts
merely tending to show that the claim is not covered, or may
not be covered, but are insufficient to eliminate the
possibility that resultant damages (or the nature of the
action) will fall within the scope of coverage, therefore add
no weight to the scales. Any seeming disparity in the
respective burdens merely reflects the substantive law.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Id. at 300.

13

i.

Waiver

14

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant “waived its right to contest coverage by failing

15
16
17

to timely reserve that right.” (P. Opp’n 1.) In two March 28, 2013 emails, Defendant
agreed to defend Hollyway but did not reserve its right to contest coverage. In a letter

18

dated three weeks later, Defendant again agreed to defend Hollyway but explained

19

that it would not defend the different and conflicting interests of the Chortkoffs,

20

should the Chortkoffs become parties to the litigation. Defendant agreed to defend

21

Hollyway “under a FULL AND COMPLETE RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF

22

CN.”

23

Plaintiffs do not offer any authority that requires an insurer reserve its right to

24

contest coverage the instant it agrees to defend an insured. Plaintiffs cite Miller v.

25

Elite Ins. Co., 100 Cal. App. 3d 739, 754 (1980); however, in Miller the court found

26

waiver because the insurer never reserved its right to contest coverage or

27

communicated that there was a coverage dispute.

28

That is not the case here.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not claim that they suffered prejudice or any other harm

9

1

because Defendant reserved its right to contest coverage three weeks after agreeing to

2

defend. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant timely reserved its right to contest

3

coverage.5

4

ii.

Extrinsic Evidence

5

Because the parties agree the Policy includes a duty to defend, the Court must

6

determine whether extrinsic evidence eliminates the possibility of coverage under the

7

Policy and thus Defendant’s duty to defend.

8

The extrinsic evidence at issue is Milton and Burton’s deposition testimony

9

from the 1989 Action, which was filed decades before the Underlying Action. During

10

their depositions, Milton and Burton explained that the regular practice at Hollyway

11
12
13

for disposing of chemical waste and filters containing chemical waste was to throw
such materials in the dumpster and other trash receptacles on the property. From this,
Defendant determined that Plaintiffs conduct fell under the Policy’s chemical

14
15
16
17

discharge exclusion. Finding no evidence that “such discharge, dispersal, release or
escape” of chemical waste was “sudden and accidental,” Defendant concludes that it
has no duty to defend.
Plaintiffs object to the admissibility of Milton and Burton’s deposition

18
19

transcripts on three grounds.

(P. Opp’n 7.)

Plaintiffs argue the transcripts are

20

inadmissible because: (1) Defendant violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

21

26(a)(1)(A)(ii) by not identifying this extrinsic evidence in its initial disclosures or

22

discovery responses until after the close of discovery and after the parties had already

23

filed their summary judgment motions; (2) they are prejudicial to Hollyway and the

24
25
26
5

27
28

Plaintiffs also argue that “[e]ven if CNI had not waived its right to contest coverage by failing to
timely reserve that right, it nevertheless forfeited that right by breaching its duty to defend.” (P.
Opp’n 6.) The Court rejects this argument on the grounds that it assumes, but does not prove,
Defendant has a duty to defend.

10

1

Chortkoffs in the Underlying Action; and (3) they are disputed.6 (Id.)

2

While the Court recognizes, and Defendant concedes, the transcripts were not

3

disclosed during Defendant’s initial disclosure, once CNI began preparation of its

4

summary judgment motion and it became clear that the transcripts would be an active

5

part of CNI’s defense, CNI timely filed supplemental discovery responses to

6

specifically identify these transcripts. (D. Reply 6.) Pursuant to 26(e)(1)(A), a party:

7

who has made a disclosure under 26(a)—or who has
responded to an interrogatory, request for production, or
request for admission—must supplement or correct its
disclosure or response in a timely manner if the party learns
that in some material respect the disclosure or response is
incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective
information has not otherwise been made known to the other
parties during the discovery process or in writing.

8
9
10
11
12
13

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1)(A).

Therefore, Defendant followed proper procedure.

14
15

Furthermore, Plaintiffs do not claim that they suffered any prejudice.
Plaintiffs refuse “to say more” about their prejudice argument because “[t]heir

16
17

liability in the Underlying Case is still at issue.”

(P. Opp’n 10.)

The Court

18

acknowledges that “[t]he law does not require insureds to prove their own liability or

19

to otherwise prejudice themselves in a pending liability action in order to obtain a

20

defense to that liability in that action from their insurer.” (Id.) (citing Scottsdale Ins.

21

Co. v. MVTransp., 36 Cal.4th 643, 661–62 (2005). However, in the instant action,

22

Plaintiffs, not Defendant, moved for the Court to lift its stay of the entire action. (ECF

23

No. 60.) Plaintiffs, not Defendant, created this predicament. Any potential prejudice

24

that Plaintiffs might suffer in the Underlying Action does not absolve Plaintiffs of

25

their burden at the summary judgment stage in the instant action.

26
6

27
28

Plaintiffs also make a half-hearted attempt to dispute the authenticity of the deposition transcripts.
(P. Evid. Obj. 4.) However, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Milton and Burton had their depositions
taken and made the alleged admissions. Therefore, the Court will not delay its ruling or force
Defendant to incur the unnecessary cost of presenting these transcripts in their entirety.

11

1

The Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument that the extrinsic evidence is

2

inadmissible because it is disputed.

3

This argument goes to the weight, not

admissibility.

4

Milton and Burton’s deposition testimony shows that, over twenty-four years

5

before Echo and Yi filed suit, the regular practice at Hollyway was disposing of

6

chemical waste and filters containing chemical waste in the dumpster and other trash

7

receptacles on the property.

8

chemical waste is neither “sudden” nor “accidental” and therefore not covered by the

9

Policy.

10
11
12
13

Such “discharge, dispersal, release or escape” of

The Court finds that this extrinsic evidence conclusively eliminates the

possibility of coverage under the Policy.
Defendant has satisfied its burden of production by presenting affirmative
evidence that there were no sudden or accidental chemical discharges while Plaintiffs
owned the property. This negates an essential element of Plaintiffs’ claim and shows

14
15
16
17

that Plaintiffs do not have sufficient evidence to carry their ultimate burden of
persuasion at trial. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to produce evidence to
support their claims and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact.

18

Plaintiffs argue that “to eliminate a duty to defend, [extrinsic evidence] must be

19

undisputed and must conclusively eliminate any potential for coverage under the

20

policy.” (P. Opp’n 9) (citing Montrose, 6 Cal. 4th at 300–01.) Plaintiffs dispute that

21

Milton and Burton’s deposition testimony from the 1989 Action represents the only

22

evidence as to the nature of chemical discharges at Hollyway while owned and

23

operated by Plaintiffs. In other words, the Court concludes, Plaintiffs do not dispute

24

Milton and Burton’s admissions during their depositions.

25

Plaintiffs argue that it is “possible that a sudden and accidental release that

26

caused the property damage during the CNI Policy could be discovered during the

27

course of the Underlying Case.” (P. Opp’n 9.) However, a good many things are

28

technically possible but Plaintiffs fail to produce a single piece of evidence to show

12

1

that this possibility contributed to or caused the contamination. Plaintiffs’ speculation

2

is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiffs must, and have

3

failed to, provide evidentiary support to substantiate their claims.
V.

4

CONCLUSION

5

The Court finds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

6

regarding the absence of Defendant’s duty to defend. As a result, the Court need not

7

address issues of breach and bad faith.

8

DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and GRANTS

9

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 17, 23.)

For the reasons discussed above, the Court

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

April 23, 2015

14
15
16

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13