
    ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROOKSTREET SECURITIES CORPORATION; et al., Defendants, and Judith L. Chiosso-Glass, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-55060.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011.
    Filed July 20, 2011.
    
      Arthur H. Aizley, Esquire, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York, NY, Douglas J. Collodel, Esquire, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, Los Ange-les, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    William D. Burger, Jr., Esquire, Sedg-wick, Detert, Moran & Arnold LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendants.
    Anthony Charles Chiosso, Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

We affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Appellee/Insurer, Illinois Union Insurance Company.

The professional liability insurance policy provides, in relevant part, the following exclusion:

The Insurer shall not be liable for Loss on account of any Claim made against any Insured:
W. Based upon, arising out of, or attributable to the sale, attempted sale, or servicing of:
1. Commodities, commodity future contracts, any type of option contract or derivative.

The policy clearly excluded losses arising out of investments in derivatives. The collateralized mortgage bonds in Appellant’s portfolio were derivatives.

Appellant argues that part of her damage arises out of conduct that is separate and apart from the sale of derivatives. She contends that the Insured, Brook-street Securities Corporation, breached its fiduciary duty, committed fraud, made misrepresentations, omitted material facts, acted negligently, and violated state and federal securities laws before buying derivatives. Appellant argues the insurance policy covers this distinct conduct under a theory of concurrent causation or efficient proximate cause analysis. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123, 129-32 (1973).

We are not persuaded by this argument. The exclusion at issue in this case applies irrespective of the legal theory of recovery asserted against the Insured. See Century Transit Sys., Inc. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 42 Cal.App.4th 121, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 567, 571 (1996). The plain terms of the policy exclude coverage for any loss attributable to an investment in derivatives. The fact that the Insured allegedly made intentional misrepresentations of fact or breached a fiduciary duty sets up the purchase of collateralized mortgage bonds. The measure of damages for each and every claim is loss based upon the purchase and sale of derivatives; therefore, these claims directly arise from a category of claims arising from a loss specifically excluded from coverage. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. City of Richmond, 763 F.2d 1076, 1081-82 (9th Cir.1985); Century Transit, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d at 571-72 & n. 6.

AFFIRMED.

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part:

Appellant argued in her Reply Brief that she had an actionable claim against Brook-street under California’s “concurrent cause doctrine,” notwithstanding the policy exclusion. See Cont’l Cas. Co. v. City of Richmond, 763 F.2d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.1985) (“[U]nder California insurance law, when two different risks concur in proximately causing a loss, coverage will be upheld if either risk is covered, notwithstanding the exclusion of the other.” (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Partridge, 10 Cal.3d 94, 109 Cal.Rptr. 811, 514 P.2d 123, 129 (1973) (emphasis added))). Although her concurrent cause claim may have merit, Appellant waived this argument by failing to raise it (1) before the district court, see Hillis v. Heineman, 626 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir.2010), and (2) in her Opening Brief, see Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir.1995). We must therefore affirm the district court’s summary judgment order. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . The district court held that collateralized mortgage bonds fell within the definition of derivatives. Appellant did not appeal that issue.
     