From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Anderson v. State Farm Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 3, 2008
300 F. App'x 470 (9th Cir. 2008)

Summary

finding that an insurance policy's exclusions did not offend public policy when the exclusions were consistent with state statutory law and the purpose behind the exclusions

Summary of this case from State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Morris

Opinion

No. 07-35483.

Argued and Submitted October 24, 2008.

Filed November 3, 2008.

Hans Eric Johnsen, Esquire, Law Offices of Hans E. Johnsen, Bellevue, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph D. Hampton, Esquire, Daniel L. Syhre, Esquire, Betts Patterson Mines, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-01112-RSM.

Before: RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and HURLEY, Judge.

The Honorable Denis R. Hurley, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Linda Anderson appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Insurance Co. We affirm.

The "regular use" exclusions at issue apply to passengers. See, e.g., Sears v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 111 Wash.2d 636, 762 P.2d 1141, 1142-43 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 89 P.3d 689 (2004). We think the state supreme court would not require control of the vehicle, as Anderson contends; rather, it would apply the Butzberger factors. 89 P.3d at 697. Under them, MA was "using" her mother's car. This being so, there is no dispute that MA's use was regular.

The clauses themselves are clear and unambiguous. Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 133 Wash.App. 394, 135 P.3d 941, 944 (2006) (citing cases). While the facts here are particularly unfortunate, applying the exclusions does not offend public policy. Both exclusions are consistent with Washington statutory law, Wash. Rev. Code § 48.22.030(2), as well as the purpose of "regular use" exclusions. Hall, 135 P.3d at 944 (describing the purpose as "to provide coverage for isolated use of a vehicle without requiring the insured to pay an additional premium to insure that vehicle"); see Barth v. Allstate Ins. Co., 95 Wash.App. 552, 977 P.2d 6, 11 (1999).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Anderson v. State Farm Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 3, 2008
300 F. App'x 470 (9th Cir. 2008)

finding that an insurance policy's exclusions did not offend public policy when the exclusions were consistent with state statutory law and the purpose behind the exclusions

Summary of this case from State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Morris
Case details for

Anderson v. State Farm Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Linda Sheehan ANDERSON, parent and natural guardian of M.A., a minor…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 3, 2008

Citations

300 F. App'x 470 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Morris

For one, the fact that the Policy complies with Hawaii law cuts against Bucknell's contention that it offends…