United States v. 2013-06-25 | 11-17574 | JAMES JARDINE V. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY | nonprecedential…

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JAMES JARDINE, ) No. 11-17574
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03318-SC
) 3:10-cv-03319-SC
v. ) 3:10-cv-03335-SC
) 3:10-cv-03336-SC
MARYLAND CASUALTY )
COMPANY; ONEBEACON ) MEMORANDUM*
INSURANCE COMPANY; )
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants – Appellees. )
)
JAMES JARDINE, ) No. 12-15157
)
Plaintiff – Appellant, ) D.C. No. 3:10-cv-03335-SC
) 3:10-cv-03318-SC
v. ) 3:10-cv-03319-SC
) 3:10-cv-33336-SC
MARYLAND CASUALTY )
COMPANY; ONEBEACON )
INSURANCE COMPANY; )
EMPLOYERS FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Defendants – Appellees. )
)
FILED
JUN 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior United States Circuit Judge for**
the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
Jardine v. Maryland Cas. Co., 823 F. Supp. 2d 955, 960–61 (N.D. Cal.1
2011).
Id. at 962.2
2
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Samuel Conti, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 10, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: RIPPLE, FERNANDEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.**
James Jardine appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to
Maryland Casualty Company (Maryland) and Employers Fire Insurance Company
(Employers) on Jardine’s claims against them arising out of damage to the south
wall of his building due to an improper plastering job and arising out of damage
caused by a small fire in the building. We affirm.
(1) Jardine asserts that the district court erred when it held that the
deterioration exclusion in the Maryland policy precluded coverage of his claim
regarding the south wall damage, and that Maryland was not precluded from so1
arguing. He also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that he2
was not entitled to more than he had already been paid for the fire loss and any of

-- 2 of 3 --

Id. at 962–66.3
Jardine v. Employers Fire Ins. Co., Nos. 10-3335 SC, 10-3336 SC (N.D.4
Cal. Dec. 27, 2011), Order Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
at 20– 21.
Id. at 22–25.5
Id. at 9–19.6
3
its consequences. We do not agree. Rather, after careful review, we do agree with3
the district court’s thoroughly reasoned analysis of the record and of California
law. We, therefore, affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order
regarding Maryland.
(2) Jardine then asserts that the district court erred when it held that the
deterioration exclusion in the Employers policy precluded his first party claim
regarding south wall damage, and that the south wall damage was manifest before4
the Employers policy was obtained, which precluded his third party claim. He5
also asserts that the district court erred when it determined that he was not entitled
to more than he had already been paid for the fire damage and any of its
consequences. Again, we do not agree. Rather, after careful review, we do agree6
with the district court’s thoroughly reasoned analysis of the record and of
California law. We, therefore, affirm for the reasons set forth in the district court’s
order regarding Employers.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --