Nancy Bono v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 24 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY BONO, No. 17-15672
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-00548-CKJ-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
STATE FARM INTERNATIONAL
SERVICES INCORPORATED, an
Arizona corporation,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Submitted April 13, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: KLEINFELD, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Nancy Bono appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm International Services
Incorporated (collectively, “State Farm”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and we affirm the district court.
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Buono v.
Norton, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th Cir. 2004). The sole issue for our review is whether
State Farm’s policy, which limits coverage to damages arising from bodily injury
suffered by an insured, is contrary to ARS § 20-259.01, which requires insurers to
provide underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage upon request.
The district court found that State Farm’s policy was valid. We agree. There
is no statutory requirement for insurers to provide UIM benefits as a result of
injury to a person who is not insured under the policy. See Alcala v. Mid-Century
Ins. Co., 828 P.2d 1262, 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992); ARS § 20-259.01(B)
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
(requiring companies to provide UIM coverage that “extends to and cover all
persons insured under the policy”) (emphasis added). Nor does the statute require
insurers to provide UIM benefits when, as in this case, a claimant who is insured
seeks benefits as compensation for the wrongful death of an uninsured person. See
ARS § 20-259.03 (authorizing recovery for wrongful death under UIM policy
where both the claimant and the decedent are insured); Bartning v. State Farm Fire
& Cas., 793 P.2d 127, 129 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990) (addressing analogous facts with
respect to uninsured motorist benefits).
Bono argues that under Lowing v. Allstate Ins. Co., 859 P.2d 724 (Ariz.
1993) (en banc), “[e]xceptions to coverage are not generally permitted unless
expressly allowed by statute.” Id. at 729 (citing Rashid v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 787 P.2d 1066, 1071 (Ariz. 1990)). But because State Farm’s policy
tracks the scope of ARS § 20-259.01 and does not create an exception to coverage,
Lowing is inapplicable. Because the district court correctly found that State Farm’s
policy was not void, the court did not err by entering summary judgment in State
Farm’s favor.
AFFIRMED.
3