Rebecca Augsburger v. Navy Mutual Aid Assn.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 18, 2020
• Docket: 19-35157
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS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