Readylink Healthcare, a Nevada corporation v. Evanston Insurance Company, a corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
READYLINK HEALTHCARE, a Nevada
corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
a corporation,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MARKEL CORPORATION, a
corporation; SHAND MORAHAN &
COMPANY, INC., a corporation,
Defendants.
No. 09-55630
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00532-SGL-OP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen G. Larson, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
JUL 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
2
Submitted on June 11, 2010**
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District
Judge.***
ReadyLink HealthCare (hereinafter "ReadyLink") appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Evanston Insurance Company
(hereinafter "Evanston") and the other defendants in this case, and denying plaintiff’s
motion for partial summary judgment. The district court entered final judgment after
the appeal was filed, and therefore, appellate jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s order on a motion for summary
judgment.
We agree with the district court and hold that the evidence demonstrated that
ReadyLink made the $75,000 payment to settle the hospital's contractual indemnity
claim, not the underlying malpractice claim. Section 2(d) of the insurance policy
specifically excluded contractual indemnity claims. Therefore, Evanston did not
breach the contract when it denied ReadyLink's claim for the $75,000 payment.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because there was no coverage under the insurance policy, there can be no bad
faith. See Waller Truck Ins. Exchange, 11 Cal. 4th 1, 35-36 (1995); Love v. Fire Ins.
Exchange, 221 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1151-1153 (1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --