Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance , 633 F. App'x 415 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 03 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
QUEEN ANNE PARK HOMEOWNERS No. 12-36021
ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit
corporation, DC No. CV 11-01579 TSZ
Plaintiff - Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
insurance company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2015
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-Appellant Queen Anne Park Homeowners Association (the
“HOA”) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant-
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appellee State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (“State Farm”). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In 2011, the HOA discovered decay in the layer of wallboard between the
exterior siding and framing of its condominiums in Seattle, Washington. The
HOA filed a claim with State Farm, which had insured the HOA’s properties
between 1992 and 1998. The HOA claimed that, while the policies were in effect,
parts of the HOA’s condominiums had “collapsed.” The insurance policies
provided coverage in the event parts of the condominium buildings “collapsed” as
a result of “hidden decay,” but the policies did not define “collapse.” State Farm
rejected the HOA’s claim. The HOA then brought this action against State Farm
for breach of contract, seeking a declaratory judgment of the parties’ rights and
obligations under the insurance policies.
During discovery, the HOA filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to
ascertain the meaning of “collapse” under Washington law. The district court
ruled that “collapse” meant that the buildings, or parts of the buildings, were in
imminent danger of falling down when the insurance policies were in effect. The
district court then ordered the HOA to show cause why summary judgment should
not be entered in favor of State Farm under this standard. Although the HOA
contested the district court’s definition of “collapse,” it conceded that it could not
2
prove that there had been an imminent threat that any of its buildings would fall
down in 1998 when its insurance policies expired, given that the condominiums
were still standing in 2012. Accordingly, the district court granted summary
judgment for State Farm and dismissed the action with prejudice.
The HOA appealed and we certified to the Washington Supreme Court the
question of the meaning of “collapse” under Washington law. Queen Anne Park
Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 763 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir.
2014). The Washington Supreme Court held that “collapse” meant the “substantial
impairment of the structural integrity of a building or part of a building that renders
such building or part of a building unfit for its function or unsafe.” Queen Anne
Park Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 352 P.3d 790, 791 (Wash.
2015) (en banc). Further, the court held that collapse “must be more than mere
settling, cracking, shrinkage, bulging, or expansion.” Id. at 792. We now review
the district court’s summary judgment ruling in light of the Washington Supreme
Court’s definition.
We review a “grant of summary judgment de novo determining whether,
viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are
any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied
the relevant substantive law.” Kraus v. Presidio Tr. Facilities Div./Residential
3
Mgmt. Branch, 572 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
omitted). We may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any ground supported
by the record. Curley v. City of N. Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629, 631 (9th Cir. 2014).
The HOA’s last insurance policy with State Farm expired in 1998. The
HOA has not pointed to any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find
that parts of its condominiums “collapsed” over 17 years ago, given that the
condominiums are still standing today. It is simply implausible that some walls of
its condominiums became “unfit for [their] function or unsafe” in or before 1998.
Cf. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-80 (2009) (establishing plausibility
pleading standard); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007)
(same). Thus, even though the definition of “collapse” articulated by the
Washington Supreme Court is different than the one the district court applied, we
may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Curley, 772 F.3d at 631.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment for
State Farm and dismissing the HOA’s claims with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
4