United States Fourth Circuit

Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs' action alleging defendant owed a duty under a renters insurance policy to defend and indemnify plaintiffs in a tort suit brought against them, is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in its rejection of the plaintiffs' jurisdictional challenge; 2) the district court correctly concluded that California law applies to the issue of contract interpretation; and 3) under California law, because plaintiffs' conduct was calculated and deliberate, it was not an accident and thus not an occurrence within the meaning of the policy provision, so there was no duty to defend.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/07/2013
• Published 03/07/2013

Judges

• DAVIS,

Court

• United States Fourth Circuit

Counsel