Vilay Siriphone v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company; Does 1 Through 10, Inclusive

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Mark L. Wolf, Chief United States District Judge for the**
District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VILAY SIRIPHONE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY; DOES 1
THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-56504
D.C. No. 3:07-cv-01656-L-JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
M. James Lorenz, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 10, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: HAWKINS and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and WOLF, Chief District
Judge.**
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Vilay Siriphone argues Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Company breached
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breached its insurance
contract in determining the policy benefits due to Siriphone after his auto repair
shop was burglarized. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Acceptance on both of Siriphone’s claims. We affirm.
1. Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Siriphone
contends Acceptance breached the implied covenant by conducting an inadequate
investigation of his claim and unreasonably delaying settlement. We conclude,
however, that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether
Acceptance’s investigation was reasonable. There is no evidence that any error
Acceptance may have made in handling the claim resulted from anything more
than “‘honest mistake, bad judgment or negligence.’” Chateau Chamberay
Homeowners Ass’n v. Assoc. Int’l Ins. Co., 90 Cal. App. 4th 335, 346 (Cal. App.
2001) (quoting Careau & Co. v. Sec. Pac. Bus. Credit, Inc., 272 Cal. Rptr. 387,
399-400 (1990)). Moreover, the delay in settling Siriphone’s claim was justified
by genuine disputes over the interpretation of the policy, the value of the shop’s
standing inventory and the value of the tools stolen. See Guebara v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 237 F.3d 987, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2001). The district court correctly concluded
there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Acceptance’s bad faith.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2. Breach of contract. Siriphone’s breach of contract claim is based on the
same claims mishandling conduct as his claim for breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing. The breach of contract claim was therefore properly
dismissed for the same reasons the bad faith claim was dismissed. See Archdale v.
Amer. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co., 64 Cal. Rptr. 3d 632, 647 n.19 (Cal. App.
2007).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --