Kim Dong-Youl v. Pacific Indemnity Ins. Co. ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 19 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KIM DONG-YOUL; MOON HEE KO, No. 18-16741
Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00018
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PACIFIC INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of the Northern Mariana Islands
Ramona V. Manglona, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 3, 2020**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: FARRIS, McKEOWN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
We review the district court’s denial of summary judgment de novo, United
States v. Washington, 853 F.3d 946, 961–62 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm. At this
*
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).
stage, we draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Sluimer
v. Verity, Inc., 606 F.3d 584, 587 (9th Cir. 2010).
Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company insured Plaintiffs-Appellants, whose
son, driving a covered vehicle, struck a pedestrian who later died. The insurer
covered liability stemming from bodily injury up to a “maximum limit” of $15,000
per person injured. First, although the policy defined “minimum limits” as
$25,000, the term “minimum limits” is not included in the section of the policy that
addresses bodily injury. The policy is not ambiguous. Plaintiffs-Appellants
themselves admitted that the applicable policy limit was $15,000.
Second, under CNMI law, an individual appointed “personal representative”
on behalf of the estate may act on behalf of the decedent’s survivors in a separate
wrongful death action. We only consider whether such action is legally binding.
Here, nothing in the CNMI wrongful death statute prohibits an administratrix or
any other appointed “personal representative” under the CNMI probate code from
serving as personal representative in a wrongful death action. See 7 CMC
§§ 2101–03. In fact, the CNMI wrongful death statute’s history counsels against
summary judgment on this issue. It was modeled after the Trust Territory wrongful
death statute, 6 TTC §§ 201–03, which permitted estate administrators to act as
personal representative in wrongful death actions. See, e.g., Ho Chan Jung v. Mode
2
Tour Saipan Corp., No. 2015-SCC-0010-CIV, 2017 WL 6623385, at *3–4 (N.
Mar. I. Dec. 27, 2017); Ychitaro v. Lotius, 3 TTR 003, at ¶¶ 32–33 (T.T.H.C. Tr.
Div. Jan. 19, 1965). As a result, under CNMI law, the personal representative
properly accepted the $15,000 policy limit as settlement on behalf of decedent’s
survivors, and the insurer has no further obligation under the terms of the policy.
Third, the parties have produced no evidence of any action by the probate
court since it appointed the administratrix in 2013. It is unclear whether that court
approved the $15,000 settlement, knew of it, impliedly consented, or whether
probate is in fact still open. As such, summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs-
Appellants on the issue of probate court approval is improper.
AFFIRMED.
3