N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LINDA KAB RIC H,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. ALLSTATE PR OPER TY AND C ASUALTY INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35768 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-03052-LR S
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of W a shington Lonny R . Suko, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 18, 2017 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GOULD a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, *** Se nior Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED
MAY24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ivan L.R . Le m e lle , Se nior Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa t ion.Linda Ka b ric h a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny ing he r m otion for
sum m ary judgm e nt a

nd gra nting thec ross-m otion for sum m ary judgm e nt file d by Allsta te Prope rty

and C a s ua lty

Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Allsta te ” ). This c a se arise s out of wa te r dam a ge to Ka

bric h’ s pe rsona l prope rty . He r Allsta t e insura nc e polic y provide d pe rsona l prope rty prote c tion up to $109,200 a nd sta te d tha t, in thee ve nt of a loss, Ka bric h m ust providea

de ta i le d proof of loss. Ka bric h c ontra c t e d with R a inbow Inte rnationa l (“ R a inbow” ) to store he r dam a ge d prope rty (am o unting to
m ore tha n 15,000 individua

l ite m s). The re a fte r, Allsta te re pe ate dly

re q ue s te d from Ka bric h the a

pproxim ate a ge and origina l c o st of the dam a ge d ite m s. Eve n though she fa ile d to providethis inform ation, Allsta te pa id he r $12,200. Afte r Ka b ric h file d suit, Allsta

te se nt thre e a dditiona l re que sts for inform ation. A c om ple te inve ntory wa s ne v e r provide d. Afte r Allsta te ’ s m otion to c om

p e l re que sting a c c e ss to the prope rty

wa s gra nte d , a c ontra c tor inspe c te d

it. Allsta te c onc lude d “ that the
va lue of c le aning or re pla c e m e nt [would] e xc e e d the re m a i ning c o nte nts limit of [Ka bric h’ s] polic y ” and issue d the re m a ining lim its to Ka bric h. W e re vie w d

e nov o a distric t c ourt’ s ruling on c ross-m otions for sum m ary judgm e nt. St. Surfing, LLC v . Gre at Am. E &

S Ins. C o. , 776 F.3d 603, 607 (9th C ir. 2014). “ A gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt is a

ppropria te whe re ‘ the m ova

nt shows that the re is no ge nuine disputea s to a ny m ate ria l fa c t a

nd the m ova

nt is e ntitle d to
2judgm e nt a s a m atte r of la

w.’ ” R oc k y Mountain Farmers Union v . C ore y , 730 F.3d 1070, 1086-87 (9th C ir. 2013) (quoting Fe d . R . C iv. P. 56(a )). W a s hington la w
a pplie s in this dive

rsity a c tion. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd
we a ffirm
. Ka bric h a l le ge d bre a c h of c ontra c t , ba d fa ith, a nd viola tions of the C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t (“ C PA” ) and Insura nc e Fa i r C onduc t Ac t (“ IFC A” ). For ba d fa ith, a

pla intiff m

ust show “ duty , bre a c h of tha t duty , a n d da m a ge s . . .
c a use d” by the bre a c h a

nd tha t “ the insure r’ s bre a c h . . . wa s unre a sona ble , frivolous, or unfounde d.” S mith v . Safe c o Ins. C

o. , 78 P.3d 1274, 1277 (Wa sh. 2003). “ T he insure r is e ntitle d to sum m ary judgm e nt if re a s ona

ble m inds c ould not diffe r that its de nia l of c ove ra ge wa s ba se d upon re a sona ble grounds.” Id. Unde r the C PA, “ the pla intiff m

u st show ‘ (1) unfa ir or de c e ptive a c t or pra c tic e ; (2)
oc c urring in tra de or c om m e rc e ; (3) public inte re st im p a c t; (4) injury

to pla intiff in his or he r busine ss or prope rty ; (5) c a usation.’ ” Bain v
. Me tro. Mortg. Grp., Inc

. , 285 P.3d 34, 49 (W a sh. 2012). None the le ss, “ an inc o rre c t de nia l of c o ve ra ge doe s not c onstitute

an unfa ir tra de pra c tic e if the insure r ha d ‘ re a sona ble justific ation’ for de ny ing c ove ra ge . ” Starc ze w sk i v . Unigard Ins. Grp. , 810 P.2d 58, 61 (W a sh. C t. App. 1991); se e also Le i ngang v . Pie rc e C ty . Me d. Bure au, Inc
. , 930 P.2d 288, 299 (W a sh. 1997). Unde r the IFC A, a n insure d “ who is unre a sona bly de nie d a
3c la im

for c ove ra ge or pa

ym e n t of be n e fits by

an insure r” m ay

sue to re c ove r a c tua l dam a ge s a

nd c osts. W a sh. R e v. C ode § 48.30.015(1); se e also Pe re z-C risantos v
. State Farm Fire & C

as. C o. , 389 P.3d 476, 479 (W a sh. 2017). Ka bric h ’ s only ground for Allsta te ’ s lia bility wa s “ undue de l ay .” He r c la im for ba d fa ith ne ve rthe le ss fa ils be c a use Allsta te did not bre a c h the insura nc e
c ontra c t. Se e Smith , 78 P.3d a t 1277. She argue s tha

t the m one y

pa id by Allsta te dire c tly to R a inbow c annot be use d whe n c a lc ulating thetota l pa ym e nts m a de unde r the polic y , but Ka

b ric h a uthoriz e d dire c t pa

ym e nt to R a inbow a

nd W a shington c a s e la

w provide s tha

t m a king insura

nc e pa ym e nts dire c t ly

to
c ontra c tors is “ a

re a sona ble c o urse of c onduc t c o nsiste nt with the dutie s [the insure r] a ssum e [s] ” unde r the polic y . Baldw in v
. Silv e r , 269 P.3d 284, 290 (W a sh. C t. App. 2011). Further, Allsta te did not a c t unre a sona

b ly . It re pe ate d ly

re que ste d
a dditiona l inform ation from Ka bric h. Eve n though she

fa ile d to re s pond, in viola tion of he r obliga

t ions unde r the polic y , Allsta te m a de an initia l pa

y m e nt of $12,200. Afte r Ka

bric h file d suit, Allsta

t e m a d e thre e a dditiona l re que sts for inform at ion. W

he n Ka b ric h’ s c ontra c tor de nie d Allsta t e a c c e ss to theprope rty , the distric t c o urt gra

n te d a c c e ss. W

he n Allsta

te re a liz e d tha

t Ka bric h wa s e ntitle d to the p olic y lim i ts, it te n de re d

the am ount re m a i ning unde r the polic y . The first pa rt of a C PA ana ly sis “ is c lose ly re late d to the ba d fa ith sta nda rd tha t we have a lre a dy
4he ld wa s not sa tisfie d,” so, “ [f] or e sse ntia lly the sa m e re a sons . . . , we c onc lude that the distric t c ourt a

ppropria t e ly dism isse d

the C PA c la im s . . . .” D e w i tt C onstr. Inc
. v . C harte r Oak FireIns. C

o. , 307 F.3d 1127, 1138 (9th C ir. 2002), as
ame nde d on de nial of re h’g and re h’g e n banc . As to he r IFC A c la im s, Ka bric h
argue s tha

t Allsta t e unre a sona

b ly de nie d pa ym e nt. Allsta

te m a de pa

ym e n ts tota ling $251,113.13, inc luding the$109,200 policy lim it for pe rsona l prope rty , e ve n though Ka

bric h fa ile d to c o m

ply with he r polic y obliga

t ions. The re fore , the distric t
c ourt a ppropria te ly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Allsta

t e . Ka bric h a s ke d the distric t c ourt to c e rtify a que s tion to the

W a s hington Supre m e C ourt tha

t de p e nde d on a

finding of ba d fa ith. “ W e re v ie w for a buse of disc re tion thedistric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a re que s t to c e rtify a que s tion to a

sta te supre m e c ourt.” Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th C ir. 2008). Allsta t e did not a c t in ba d fa ith, so the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re t ion. W e too de c line to c e rtify

the que stion.

“ Attorne y fe e s unde r Oly mpic [ S.S. C o. v . C e nte nnial Ins. C

o. , 811 P.2d 673, 681 (W a sh. 1991)] are ava ila b le only whe n the insure d pre va ils.” Hardy v . Pe mc o Mut. Ins. C

o. , 61 P.3d 380, 382 (W a sh. C t. App. 2003). Ka bric h did not pre va il a

nd the re fore is not e ntitle d to fe e s or c osts. AFFIR M ED.
5