JUDGMENT

R. GARY KLAUSNER, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation and Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. (collectively, "Liberty") filed this action against defendants Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Joseph Ledesma and Kris Meyer (collectively, "L&M").

In this action, Liberty sought a declaration from the Court that Liberty had no duty to defend or indemnify L&M in an underlying lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino, styled Jane JS Doe v. Ledesma & Meyer Constr. Co., Inc., et al., Case No. CIVDS 1007001 (the "underlying action") because the bodily injury alleged in the underlying action did not reflect an "occurrence" as defined by insurance policies that Liberty issued to L&M. Liberty also sought a declaration from the Court that the insurance policies they issued to L&M provided no coverage for the costs or expenses incurred by L&M to defend or indemnify the San Bernardino County Unified School District (the "District") in the underlying action. Finally, Liberty sought reimbursement of defense costs and fees that Liberty had expended in defending L&M in the underlying action.

L&M filed a counterclaim against Liberty for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith, breach of contract, and declaratory relief. On or about June 19, 2012, the Court dismissed the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and breach of contract as unripe.

On or about January 23, 2013, the Court granted summary judgment to Liberty, finding that the underlying action did not allege an "occurrence" as defined in the Liberty policies, and thus the underlying action did not implicate any coverage obligation. After final judgment was entered, L&M appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, certified the question as to whether the underlying action alleged an "occurrence" to the California Supreme Court. On or about June 4, 2018, the California Supreme Court determined that the underlying action alleged an "occurrence." The Ninth Circuit remanded to this Court, which then requested that the parties submit briefs in relation to the outstanding question of whether Liberty had a duty to defend or indemnify the District in the underlying action. The Court determined that Liberty had no obligation to defend or indemnify the District under its policies.

The Court has exercised its discretion to deny the parties leave to amend their pleadings to state new claims or defenses that relate to conduct or events occurring after this action was filed and while the appeal was pending. This judgment is without prejudice to the right of the parties to any further litigation in relation to such conduct.

The Court now rules on the pending claims for Declaratory Judgment as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that,

(1) Consistent with the determination made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, the underlying action alleged an "occurrence" under the Liberty policies issued to L&M by Liberty.

(2) Based on a determination of the issues litigated in this Court and raised on appeal, Liberty is obligated to defend and indemnify L&M in the underlying action.

(3) The District does not qualify as an additional insured under the Liberty policies and Liberty was not obligated to defend or indemnify the District in the underlying action on that basis.

(4) The Court vacates the prior Entry of Final Judgment and Judgment entered on June 13, 2013 in the amount of $854,575.10, plus prejudgment interest, in favor of Liberty and against L&M.

(5) Each party shall bear its own costs as to the Declaratory Relief claims.