Rebecca Augsburger v. Navy Mutual Aid Assn. ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 18 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REBECCA AUGSBURGER, No. 19-35157
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01817-BAT
v.
NAVY MUTUAL AID ASSOCIATION, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Brian Tsuchida, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 7, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Vince Chhabria, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Rebecca Augsburger appeals from an order granting summary judgment to
Navy Mutual Aid Association in an action asserting that Navy Mutual wrongfully
denied her life insurance claim following her husband’s death. We affirm.
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d
1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). We apply Washington law to Augsburger’s
state-law claims. See Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int’l, Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 939 (9th
Cir. 2001).
Under Washington law, mutual assent to the formation of a contract is
judged based on the parties’ outward expressions and acts, not their unexpressed
intentions. City of Everett v. Sumstad’s Estate, 631 P.2d 366, 367 (Wash. 1981)
(en banc). Here, Navy Mutual communicated clearly and repeatedly to Augsburger
that under the terms of the prior family policy, purchasing a new policy that
covered only her life would result in termination of existing coverage on her
husband’s life. Augsburger objectively manifested assent to replace her existing
policy with one that covered her life alone. Navy Mutual reasonably and in good
faith investigated and then denied Augsburger’s claim under the old policy on that
basis. See Coventry Assoc. v. Am. States Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 933, 938 (Wash. 1998)
2
(en banc); Wash. Admin. Code § 284-30-330(4).1 The record does not reflect any
mutual mistake that would support reformation, nor could a reasonable jury find
that Navy Mutual negligently assisted Augsburger during the application process.
AFFIRMED.
1
Augsburger’s Motion to File Supplemental Excerpts of Record (ECF No.
26) is DENIED. Navy Mutual’s Motion to File a Supplemental Brief (ECF No.
34) is DENIED as moot.
3