
    WESTERN WORLD INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HAWAII, DefendantAppellee.
    No. 08-16462.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 15, 2009.
    Filed Nov. 23, 2009.
    Keith K. Hiraoka, Roeca, Louie & Hi-raoka, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Michael Joseph Udovic, Esquire, Deputy Corporation Counsel, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Hilo, HI, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: BEEZER, GRABER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Insurer Western World Insurance Company (“Western World”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County of Hawaii on the issue of Western World’s duty to defend the County of Hawaii in two pending state court suits. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir.2004). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court’s declaratory judgment.

The facts of this case are known to the parties and are not repeated here.

The district court correctly determined that Western World has a duty to defend the County of Hawaii in the pending state court suits. So long as “the pleadings have alleged claims for relief which fall within the terms for coverage,” there is a duty to defend whenever there is the mere possibility that coverage exists. Hawaiian Holiday Macadamia Nut Co. v. Indus. Indent. Co., 76 Hawai’i 166, 872 P.2d 230, 233 (1994). The policy covers the off-duty actions of the County of Hawaii’s emergency personnel, as well as the post-mor-tem handling of human bodies and resulting emotional distress damages. There is at least a possibility that some of these covered claims may not be subject to administrative exhaustion requirements under section 671-12 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Western World has a duty to defend.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     