t, even if Maverick had intended to continue work on the project, it could no longer do so and, due to the seizure by Coop, any work which had not been completed was effectively abandoned.
[2]  Defendant argues that Kaminski was actually decided on other grounds. We disagree. Although the court concluded that coverage existed over the products liability claims on the basis that the term "product" in the policy was ambiguous, the court also determined that the failure to warn claims were not excluded by the products hazard exclusion because they alleged negligent conduct. Id. 580 A.2d at 403.
[3]  We note that, because defendant did not raise these defenses at the time that it denied coverage to Maverick, it is estopped from asserting them in defense of plaintiffs' bad faith failure to defend claim. However, defendant is not estopped from asserting these defenses in attempting to establish that there was no coverage.


                                                                           FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            JAN 17 2017
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS


                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-10099

              Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00468-JAM-1

  v.

JOSE PENA,                                       MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant - Appellant.


                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                     John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted January 12, 2017**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,*** District
Judge.




        *
           