Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8644390
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance
No. 8644390 · Decided October 4, 2007
No. 8644390·Ninth Circuit · 2007·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
October 4, 2007
Citation
No. 8644390
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
*222 MEMORANDUM ** Wal-Mart Stores, Ine., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulf Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters, Members and Insurers at Lloyd’s of London, and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau (collectively “Insurers”). The district court held that an exclusionary clause of the insurance policies in question precluded Wal-Mart from collecting insurance proceeds from the Insurers. We affirm. Under the law of the State of Oregon, which governs here, 1 the provisions that excluded coverage for “making good defective design or specifications, faulty material, or faulty workmanship” unambiguously 2 precluded Wal-Mart from recovering for repairs to the very items (concrete slabs) that were defective due to the claimed defective specifications. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 929 F.2d 447, 449-50 (9th Cir.1991); see also Allianz Ins. Co. v. Impero, 654 F.Supp. 16, 17-18 (E.D.Wash.1986). 3 AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . See Freund v. Nycomed Amersham, 347 F.3d 752 , 761 (9th Cir.2003). Wal-Mart has waived any argument that the law of another state should apply. See Brookfield Commc’ns, Inc. v. West Coast Entm't Cotp., 174 F.3d 1036 , 1046 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1999). . Once we determine that the provision is not ambiguous as applied here, that is the end of the inquiry. See N. Pac. Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 332 Or. 20, 25 , 22 P.3d 739, 741-42 (2001); Employers Ins. of Wausau, A Mut. Co. v. Tektronix, Inc., 211 Or.App. 485, 515 , 156 P.3d 105, 122-23 (2007). . We recognize that the Supreme Court of Oregon has not yet directly decided the issue but, in our view, that court would follow our analysis, which accords with the great weight of authority. See, e.g., GTE Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 598 , 609-10, 613-14 (3d Cir.2004); Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Am. Prot. Ins. Co., 226 F.Supp.2d 470, 479 (S.D.N.Y.2002); Swire Pac. Holdings, Inc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 845 So.2d 161, 166-68 (Fla. 2003), and cases cited therein.
Plain English Summary
*222 MEMORANDUM ** Wal-Mart Stores, Ine., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulf Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters, Members and Insurers at Lloyd’s of London, and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau
Key Points
01*222 MEMORANDUM ** Wal-Mart Stores, Ine., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulf Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters, Members and Insurers at Lloyd’s of London, and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau
02The district court held that an exclusionary clause of the insurance policies in question precluded Wal-Mart from collecting insurance proceeds from the Insurers.
03Under the law of the State of Oregon, which governs here, 1 the provisions that excluded coverage for “making good defective design or specifications, faulty material, or faulty workmanship” unambiguously 2 precluded Wal-Mart from recoverin
04Smith, 929 F.2d 447, 449-50 (9th Cir.1991); see also Allianz Ins.
Frequently Asked Questions
*222 MEMORANDUM ** Wal-Mart Stores, Ine., appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Gulf Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters, Members and Insurers at Lloyd’s of London, and Employers Insurance Company of Wausau
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gulf Insurance in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on October 4, 2007.
Use the citation No. 8644390 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.