Fletcher Montano v. the Dentists Insurance Company

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 24-5202
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDY FLETCHER MONTANO, No. 24-5202 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:23-cv-00369-SAB v. MEMORANDUM* THE DENTISTS INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-third-pty-plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DR. SANDY FLETCHER MONTANO DDS, PLLC, a Washington Professional Limited Liability Company, DEER PARK DENTAL, PLLC, a Washington Professional Limited Liability Company,

Third-pty-defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

* 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). Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Sandy Fletcher Montano appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action against The Dentists Insurance Company

(“TDIC”) alleging claims stemming from its denial of insurance coverage under a

fraud clause in Montano’s policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo. Burch v. City of Chubbuck, 146 F.4th 822, 832 (9th Cir.

2025). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Montano’s claim

for breach of contract because Montano failed to raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether he was entitled to coverage despite making material

misrepresentations that would void his insurance claim. See Ki Sin Kim v. Allstate

Ins. Co., 223 P.3d 1180, 1188 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (explaining that Washington

courts uphold “‘void for fraud’ provisions where the policy expressly states that an

insured is not entitled to coverage if that insured intentionally misrepresents or

conceals a material fact regarding a claim and that such misrepresentations will

void the entire policy”); see also Stanford Univ. Hosp. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 174 F.3d

1077, 1083 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that federal courts apply state law when

interpreting insurance policies in diversity actions).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Montano’s

extracontractual claims because the district court’s finding of fraud precludes

2 24-5202 recovery for bad faith, for Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”)

violations, or for Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) violations, and

Montano failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether TDIC’s

investigation of his insurance claim was unreasonable. See Mut. of Enumclaw Ins.

Co. v. Cox, 757 P.2d 499, 504 (Wash. 1988) (holding that a finding of fraud

precludes recovery on claims under the CPA based on an insurance company’s bad

faith); Beasley v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 517 P.3d 500, 517 (Wash. Ct. App. 2022)

(explaining that “IFCA claims require that the insurer’s unreasonable act or acts

result in the unreasonable denial of the insured’s claim”); First State Ins. Co. v.

Kemper Nat. Ins. Co., 971 P.2d 953, 959 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (recognizing

ordinary care standard for a negligent claim handling).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Lui v.

DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2025).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-5202