Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8622179
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Polo Towers Master Owners Ass'n v. Factory Mutual Insurance
No. 8622179 · Decided June 19, 2006
No. 8622179·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 19, 2006
Citation
No. 8622179
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Plaintiff Polo Towers Master Owners Association, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company. On de novo review, Padfield v. AIG Life Ins. Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2002), we hold that Plaintiffs loss is excluded from coverage under the “contamination” provision of the insurance policy. That provision is not ambiguous, see United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Frontier Ins. Co., 120 Nev. 678 , 99 P.3d 1153, 1157 (2004) (holding that the courts may not rewrite unambiguous insurance contract provisions), and it includes the high level of legionella bacteria in the water. The loss did not result directly from “covered” physical damage because the “faulty workmanship” exclusion applies. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
MEMORANDUM ** Plaintiff Polo Towers Master Owners Association, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company.
Key Points
01MEMORANDUM ** Plaintiff Polo Towers Master Owners Association, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company.
02Co., 290 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2002), we hold that Plaintiffs loss is excluded from coverage under the “contamination” provision of the insurance policy.
03678 , 99 P.3d 1153, 1157 (2004) (holding that the courts may not rewrite unambiguous insurance contract provisions), and it includes the high level of legionella bacteria in the water.
04The loss did not result directly from “covered” physical damage because the “faulty workmanship” exclusion applies.
Frequently Asked Questions
MEMORANDUM ** Plaintiff Polo Towers Master Owners Association, Inc., appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Defendant Factory Mutual Insurance Company.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Polo Towers Master Owners Ass'n v. Factory Mutual Insurance in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 19, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8622179 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.