Benito Cervantes v. Foremost Ins. Co.
This text of Benito Cervantes v. Foremost Ins. Co. (Benito Cervantes v. Foremost Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 11 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO CERVANTES, an individual, No. 16-35315
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03172-SMJ
v. MEMORANDUM* FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2018** Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Benito Cervantes appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendant Foremost Insurance Company. Reviewing de
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo and taking all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Am. Tower Corp.
v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
The insurance policy does not cover the damage to Plaintiff’s mobile home.
It covers only "direct, sudden and accidental loss of, or damage to" the mobile
home. Under Washington law, the word "sudden," when not otherwise defined,
means "unforeseen and unexpected." Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v.
Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 333 P.2d 938, 941 (Wash. 1959). Undisputed
evidence shows that the damage about which Plaintiff complains developed over a
period of up to a year or longer and was readily detectable. The damage was thus
not "sudden."
Plaintiff’s argument that the damage was "sudden" because he failed to
detect it misses the point. What matters is whether the damage itself was
detectable, not whether the insured party actually detected it. See id. at 940 (noting
that the damage in that case could be considered sudden "as long as its progress
was undetect[a]ble").
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Benito Cervantes v. Foremost Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benito-cervantes-v-foremost-ins-co-ca9-2018.