Opinion
No. 10-35971.
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2011 Seattle, Washington.
July 28, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05637-BHS.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Geralyn Ward-Davis appeals the district court's grant of summary judgement to Stonebridge Life Insurance Company. We affirm.
"An insurance policy provision is ambiguous when it is fairly susceptible to two different interpretations, both of which are reasonable." Lynott v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 871 P.2d 146, 152 (Wash. 1994). Before the district court, Plaintiff failed to put forth any reasonable interpretation of Exclusion 7 other than the one adopted by the district court. Plaintiff's assertion that reading Exclusions 7 and 3 together prevents Exclusion 7 from precluding coverage is unavailing for several reasons. First, Exclusions 7 and 3, as interpreted by the district court, do not conflict. Exclusion 3 merely disallows coverage when the covered individual is taking drugs, unless they are prescribed by a doctor; it does not guarantee coverage for anyone who suffers an accidental death while taking prescription drugs. Exclusion 7 may therefore still operate in a case where the covered individual is on prescription drugs. Even if they did conflict, exclusions do not need to be harmonized with each other. Harrison Plumbing Heating, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 681 P.2d 875, 880 (Wash. App. 1984). Moreover, "[e]xclusion clauses do not grant coverage; rather, they subtract from it." Id.
In the absence of any reasonable, alternative interpretation of Exclusion 7 put forth by Plaintiff, the district judge did not err in concluding that Exclusion 7 excluded coverage for Mr. Ward's death. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.