Cheryl Ward v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co , 608 F. App'x 487 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             JUN 24 2015
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    CHERYL WARD, FKA Cheryl White;                   No. 13-35628
    RONALD MILLSAPS; WAYNE
    MILLSAPS; STEVEN MILLSAPS,                       D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05092- RBL
    Plaintiffs-counter-defendants
    - Appellants,                                    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE
    COMPANY,
    Defendant-counter-claimant -
    Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 1, 2015**
    Seattle, Washington
    Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
    Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their complaint arising
    from defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company’s (“Stonebridge’s”) denial of
    their insurance claims. Although Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged both tort and
    contract claims, on appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the district court’s conclusion
    that their breach-of-contract claims were time-barred under the insurance policies’
    suit limitation provisions. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we
    affirm.
    1.     The district court correctly determined that the suit limitation
    provisions contained in the insurance polices were valid under Washington law.
    Both policies contain specific provisions stating that any legal action for damages
    on the policy be brought at least 60 days after proof of loss is furnished, but no
    later than three years after the date that proof of loss is required to be given.
    Plaintiffs argue that these suit limitation provisions are void because they do not
    link the time within which to bring suit to the date a cause of action “accrues.” In
    support of this argument, Plaintiffs rely on 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.200
    , which
    provides, in relevant part:
    (1) No insurance contract delivered or issued for delivery in this state
    and covering subjects located, resident, or to be performed in this
    state, shall contain any condition, stipulation, or agreement
    . . .
    2
    (c) limiting right of action against the insurer to a period of less
    than one year from the time when the cause of action accrues in
    connection with all insurances other than property and marine and
    transportation insurances. In contracts of property insurance, or of
    marine and transportation insurance, such limitation shall not be to a
    period of less than one year from the date of the loss.
    (2) Any such condition, stipulation, or agreement in violation of this
    section shall be void, but such voiding shall not affect the validity of
    the other provisions of the contract.
    The Washington legislature has specifically indicated, however, that
    provisions like those in Stonebridge’s policies are valid. Under 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 48.20.142
    , all disability insurance policies in Washington must contain suit
    limitation provisions functionally identical to the provisions in the policies at issue
    here. Under Plaintiffs’ reading of § 48.18.200, the suit limitation provision
    required by § 48.20.142 would be void. When possible, it is our duty to construe
    statutes to avoid conflict and inconsistency. See Drakes Bay Oyster Co. v. Jewell,
    
    747 F.3d 1073
    , 1083 (9th Cir. 2014); State v. Bash, 
    925 P.2d 978
    , 981 (Wash.
    1996) (en banc). Thus, we reject Plaintiffs’ argument that 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.200
     forbids suit limitation provisions that tie the time to sue to the date proof
    3
    of loss is required and conclude that the suit limitation provisions at issue here are
    valid under § 48.18.200.1
    2.     Plaintiffs’ complaint was untimely under the suit limitation
    provisions. The policies require that proof of loss be given within fifteen months
    of the date of loss and that any legal action be initiated within three years after that.
    Thus, even under the most generous reading of the policies, Plaintiffs were
    required to file suit within four years and three months after the insured’s death.
    Plaintiffs, however, did not file until four years and nine months after the insured’s
    death, well beyond the time allotted.
    Plaintiffs arguments to the contrary are meritless. Washington law does not
    require Stonebridge to show it was prejudiced by Plaintiffs’ untimely filing.
    Rather, “a finding of prejudice is not required before an insurance company may
    rely on an insured’s failure to bring suit within the contract limitation period.”
    Simms v. Allstate Ins. Co., 
    621 P.2d 155
    , 158 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). Moreover,
    there is nothing in the language of the policies suggesting that the parties somehow
    intended to create a prejudice requirement by contact. To the contrary, the policies
    1
    Because we conclude that the suit limitation provisions do not violate
    
    Wash. Rev. Code § 48.18.200
    (1)(c), we need not – and do not – address whether
    either of the policies constitutes “disability insurance” for the purposes of 
    Wash. Rev. Code § 48.20.142
    .
    4
    plainly require that any action be brought, at the absolute latest, within four years
    and three months of the loss. Plaintiffs simply filed too late.
    • ! •
    The judgment of the district court is
    AFFIRMED.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-35628

Citation Numbers: 608 F. App'x 487

Filed Date: 6/24/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023