MW Builders, Inc. v. Safeco Insurance Co. Of America , 386 F. App'x 674 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUL 08 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MW BUILDERS, INC., a Missouri                    No. 09-35538
    corporation; GREAT AMERICAN
    ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY,                      D.C. No. 3:02-cv-01578-AC
    an Ohio corporation,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,            MEMORANDUM *
    v.
    SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
    AMERICA, a Washington corporation;
    SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF
    OREGON, an Oregon corporation;
    AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE
    COMPANY, an Indiana corporation,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    And
    ELLIOTT, POWELL, BADEN &
    BAKER, INC., an Oregon corporation;
    REX & COMPANY, an Oregon
    corporation; LAWRENCE REX ESTATE,
    by and through its personal representative;
    LAWRENCE REX TRUST, by and
    through its Trustee, L.V. Rex,
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted June 10, 2010
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: THOMPSON, McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Defendants Safeco Insurance Company of America and its affiliates
    (collectively “Safeco”) appeal the district court’s judgment, following our remand,
    in favor of MW Builders, Inc., and its subrogated insurer (collectively “MW
    Builders”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we reverse and
    remand.
    In the prior appeal, we concluded that Safeco was obligated to cover certain
    repair costs but not others, and remanded to the district court to partition the
    $620,000 arbitration award between covered and uncovered costs. On remand, the
    district court referred the matter to the magistrate judge who ordered the parties to
    conduct discovery and file cross motions for summary judgement. The magistrate
    judge concluded that sixty percent of the $620,000 arbitration award represented
    covered costs and recommended that MW Builders be awarded $372,000. The
    2
    district court, however, overruled the magistrate judge’s recommendation and
    granted MW Builders the entire $620,000 arbitration award. “We review de novo
    the district court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary judgment.” Caliber One
    Indem. Co. v. Wade Cook Fin. Corp., 
    491 F.3d 1079
    , 1082 (9th Cir. 2007).
    The district court erred in granting MW Builders the entire arbitration award
    because that award included uncovered repair costs, which we previously
    instructed the court to partition from the covered repair costs.1 We know that the
    arbitration award included uncovered repair costs because it was calculated as a
    percentage of MW Builders’ $2 million settlement that was based, in part, on
    $629,960 in uncovered repair costs. The magistrate judge reasonably partitioned
    these uncovered costs from the covered costs and recommended that MW Builders
    be awarded sixty percent of the arbitration award pursuant to this court’s prior
    order.
    The district court’s decision to award MW Builders the entire arbitration
    award notwithstanding the fact that the award included some uncovered costs was
    improper. That the actual repair costs, excluding uncovered repairs, ended up
    1
    Because we conclude that the arbitration award included uncovered costs
    that must be partitioned, we need not resolve Safeco’s other contentions regarding
    the law of the case doctrine and which party bears the burden of proof to establish
    an allocation between covered and uncovered claims under Oregon law.
    3
    exceeding the $620,000 arbitration award does not justify awarding MW Builders
    the entire award. MW Builders was never entitled to recover all the repair costs
    from Safeco. It was only entitled to recover a portion of the damage to the hotel
    caused by Safeco’s insured.
    We therefore reverse the district court’s decision to award MW Builders the
    entire $620,000 arbitration award, and remand for the district court to modify the
    judgment to reflect an award of $372,000 in favor of MW Builders, the amount of
    covered costs recommended by the magistrate judge.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-35538

Citation Numbers: 386 F. App'x 674

Judges: McKEOWN, Paez, Thompson

Filed Date: 7/8/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023