Case ID: f-appx_446/html/0052-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Geralyn WARD-DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JC PENNEY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer and Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, a foreign insurer, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-35971.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 15, 2011.
    Filed July 28, 2011.
    Robert A. Clough, Thomas Moulton Geisness, Geisness Law Firm, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Brian K. Keeley, Janis C. Puracal, Bulli-vant Houser Bailey, PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GILMAN, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, Senior Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Geralyn Ward-Davis appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgement to Stonebridge Life Insurance Company. We affirm.

“An insurance policy provision is ambiguous when it is fairly susceptible to two different interpretations, both of which are reasonable.” Lynott v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 123 Wash.2d 678, 871 P.2d 146, 152 (1994). Before the district court, Plaintiff failed to put forth any reasonable interpretation of Exclusion 7 other than the one adopted by the district court. Plaintiffs assertion that reading Exclusions 7 and 3 together prevents Exclusion 7 from precluding coverage is unavailing for several reasons. First, Exclusions 7 and 3, as interpreted by the district court, do not conflict. Exclusion 3 merely disallows coverage when the covered individual is taking drugs, unless they are prescribed by a doctor; it does not guarantee coverage for anyone who suffers an accidental death while taking prescription drugs. Exclusion 7 may therefore still operate in a case where the covered individual is on prescription drugs. Even if they did conflict, exclusions do not need to be harmonized with each other. Harrison Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Group, 37 Wash.App. 621, 681 P.2d 875, 880 (Wash.App.1984). Moreover, “[exclusion clauses do not grant coverage; rather, they subtract from it.” Id.

In the absence of any reasonable, alternative interpretation of Exclusion 7 put forth by Plaintiff, the district judge did not err in concluding that Exclusion 7 excluded coverage for Mr. Ward’s death. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.