Bita Trading, Inc. v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLIED INSURANCE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BITA TRADING, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and ALLIED INSURANCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55371
D.C. No.
3:13-cv-01548-JM-WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2016**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, BEA, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Bita Trading, Inc. (“Bita”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

The only named insured on the policy Nationwide issued to Sorrento Mesa
Hand Car Wash & Spa, Inc. (“Sorrento”) was Sorrento. Pursuant to the liability
form’s provisions for automatic additional insureds, however, Nationwide issued
the Change of Declarations Endorsement recognizing Bita as an “additional
insured” under the Sorrento Policy. This Change of Declarations Endorsement
contains the phrase “added form number PBAI02," making clear that Bita was
added as an “additional insured” on the basis of that form. Form PBAI02, the
“Acknowledgment of Additional Insured Status Managers or Lessors of Leased
Premises” form (the “Acknowledgment”), expressly restricts Bita’s coverage as an
additional insured to “[l]iability [c]overage.” Because the Change of Declarations
Endorsement received by Bita explicitly referenced form PBAI02 (the
Acknowledgment), which expressly limited Bita’s coverage as an automatic
additional insured to only third-party liability coverage, the policy issued to
Sorrento did not provide first-party property damage coverage to Bita.
The policy, Acknowledgment, and Change of Declarations Endorsement are
not ambiguous, but rather make clear that the policy issued to Sorrento extended
coverage to Bita as an automatic additional insured only for liability, not property
damage. “If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.” Bank of the W.
v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1264 (1992); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1638
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(“The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation, if the language is clear
and explicit, and does not involve an absurdity.”). As such, there is no need to turn
to Bita’s reasonable expectations in analyzing the scope of coverage.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --