Legal Opinion
Sentry Select Insurance v. Alaska National Insurance
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 31, 2003No. 02-35968; D.C. No. CV-01-01956-MJPPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM**
The district court granted an interlocutory declaratory judgment ruling that, with respect to the Okada accident, the P & I policy did not impose a duty to defend on Sentry Select Insurance Company (Sentry), and the MEL policy did impose a duty to defend on Alaska National Insurance Co. (Alaska). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(3), and affirm.
Sentry established as a matter of law that the accident occurred on dry land and was not related to the operation of the vessel insured by Sentry’s policy. In City and County of San Francisco v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Porphire Lanasse v. Travelers Insurance Company, the California Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Royal Insurance Company, Excess-Surplus Lines, Inc., And/or Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1972
- City and County of San Francisco, Counter-Claimant-Appellant v. Underwriters at Lloyds, London, Counter-Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
3Cited by2 opinions
- Sentry Select Insurance v. Royal Insurance Co. of AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- No. 05-35323Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007