PATRICK E. PATTERSON; KRIS LYNN-PATTERSON, individuals v. American Economy Insurance Company, a Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK E. PATTERSON; KRIS
LYNN-PATTERSON, individuals,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-16445
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01281-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,*** District
Judge.
FILED
FEB 05 2018
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).
*** The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, United States District Judge for the
District of Columbia, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Appellants Patrick E. Patterson and Kris Lynn-Patterson (Pattersons) appeal
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee American
Economy Insurance Company (AEIC). We affirm the district court’s judgment.
The insurance policy provided that AEIC would compensate the Pattersons
for “loss or damage in any one occurrence.” The policy declarations contained a
Limits of Insurance provision capping losses for “business personal property” at
$103,000. The Pattersons sought compensation for several instances of property
theft from the same storage facility occurring over the course of several days. The
record reflects that the same individual was responsible for the series of thefts.
AEIC agreed to pay the maximum $103,000 as provided in the Limits of Insurance
provision based on a single occurrence.
Under California insurance law, “when a scheme to steal property is the
proximate and continuing cause of a series or combinations of thefts, the losses for
liability insurance purposes constitute part of a single occurrence.” Eott Energy
Corp. v. Storebrand Int’l Ins. Co., 45 Cal. App. 4th 565, 576 (1996) (citations
omitted). As a result, the district court correctly concluded that the thefts
constituted a single occurrence, and AEIC was not required to provide additional
compensation to the Pattersons beyond the policy limits for a single occurrence.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

See id. The district court properly denied relief on the claim for breach of the
insurance contract.
The district court also properly granted summary judgment on the
Pattersons’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
because AEIC reasonably denied additional compensation for the property theft
under California law. See id. at 577-78; see also Tilbury Constructors, Inc. v. State
Comp. Ins. Fund, 137 Cal. App. 4th 466, 475 (2006) (explaining that “there are at
least two separate requirements to establish breach of the implied covenant: (1)
benefits due under the policy must have been withheld; and (2) the reason for
withholding benefits must have been unreasonable or without proper cause”)
(citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --