N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C . DEWAYNE LUC KETT, a W a shington re side nt, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla nt,
v. STATE FAR

M M U T UAL AUTOM OB ILE INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a fore ign c orporation doing busine ss in W a shington,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 20-35337 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-00170-R AJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d M arc h 1, 2021 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : TASHIM A, R

AW LINSON, a

nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED MAR 12 2021 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).Pla intiff-a ppe lla nt C . De wayne Luc ke tt a

p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s e ntry of
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of de fe nda

nt-a ppe lle e State Farm

Auto Insura

nc e C om pa ny on Luc k e tt’ s de c la

ra tory re lie f and ba d fa ith c la im s a rising out of his
c la im for Unde rinsure d M otorist (UIM ) be n e fits from his Sta te Farm polic y . 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt de novo a

nd m a y a ffirm the distric t c ourt on a

ny ba sis supporte d by the re c ord. Gordon v . Virtumundo, Inc
. , 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita

tion omitte d). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt c o rre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Luc ke tt wa s not e ntitle d to UIM be ne fits unde r his polic y be c a use he ha d a lre a dy

re c e ive d a ll tha

t he wa s “ l e ga lly
e ntitle d to re c ove r” through se ttle m e nt. Se e W a sh. R e v. C o de § 48.22.030(1). The purpose of UIM c o ve ra ge is to “ pla c e the insure d in the sa m e position a s if the tortfe a sor c arrie d [a de quat e ] lia bility insura nc e .” Day ton v . Farme rs Ins. Grp. , 876 P.2d 896, 898 (W a sh. 1994) (e n ba nc ). Luc ke tt re c e i ve d the e ntire am ount of the dam a ge s he wa s a

warde d through a

post-judgm e nt se ttle m e nt, e xc e pt for a sm a ll portion, whic h he wa i ve d to sa t isfy the judgm e nt in his fa

vor. Allowing Luc ke tt to

1 Luc ke tt a lso brought c l a im s unde r W a shington’ s Insura nc e Fa ir C onduc t Ac t (W a s h. R e v. C o de § 48.30.015) a nd C onsum e r Prote c t ion Ac t (W a s h. R e v. C ode § 19.86.090). Luc ke tt did not raise the se issue s in his ope n ing brie f, and ha s wa ive d the m

on a ppe a l. Se e P ac iulan v . Ge orge , 229 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th C ir. 2000). 2a lso re c ove r UIM be ne fits would c ontra ve ne W a s hington la

wby e ffe c t ive l y a llowing him

a double re c ove ry

and would pla c e him

in a be tte r position by

having be e n struc k by

an unde rinsure d drive r a s oppose d to a n a de quate l y insure d drive r. Se e id. ; Ellw e in v
. Hartford Ac c ide nt & Inde m. C o. , 15 P.3d 640, 647 (W a s h. 2001) (e n ba nc ), ov e r rule d on othe r grounds by Smith v
. Safe c o Ins. C

o. , 78 P.3d 1274 (W a sh. 2003) (e n ba

nc ). Furthe r, Luc ke tt wa s not e ntitle d to re c e ive UIM be n e fits for da m a ge s
arising out of his own c ontributory ne glige nc e . In W a s hington, UIM c ove ra ge

“ e x te nds no fa

rthe r tha n the le ga l lia

b ility of the involve d tortfe a sors, if a ny .” Allstate Ins. C o . v . De jbod, 818 P.2d 608, 611 (W a sh. C t. App. 1991). Sta nda rd lia bility insura nc e and UIM c ove ra g e work in ta nde m to “ fully c o m pe nsate
c la im ants for thoseam ounts tha t the y are le ga lly

e ntitle d to re c ove r from

lia ble tortfe a sors.” Id. (c ita

tions omitte d). Onc e Luc ke tt a c c e pte d the se ttle m e nt
a gre e m e nt in e xc ha

nge for satisfa c t ion of judgm e nt, he wa s no longe r le ga l ly
e ntitle d to da

m a ge s from

the tortfe a sor. S

e e Day ton , 876 P.2d a

t 898 (“ UIM
c arrie rs a re not c om

pe lle d to pa

y whe n the sa

m e re c o ve ry

c ould not ha

ve be e n obta ine d from the [unde r] insure d tortfe a sor.” (c i tation omitte d)). The judgm e nt be ing sa tisfie d, Luc ke tt wa s no longe r le ga lly e ntitle d to re c o ve r from his UIM polic y . 3The distric t c ourt prope rly re je c te d Luc ke tt’ s ba d fa i th c la im . The insure r in
a UIM dispute m

ust de a l with its insure d “ fa i rly and in good faith.” K

i Sin K im v
. Allstate Ins. C o ., Inc
. , 223 P.3d 1180, 1192 (Wa sh. C t. App. 2009); se e also W a sh. R e v. C ode § 48.01.030. Howeve r, the insure r ne e d not e le vate the insure d ’ s ne e ds
a bove its own a

nd doe s not bre a c h its duty if the re is a re a sona ble e xpla nation for its a c tions. Se e K

e lle r v . Allstate

Ins. C o. , 915 P.2d 1140, 1145 (Wa sh. C t. App. 1996). Sta

te Farm ’ s de nia l of Luc ke tt’ s UIM c la im wa s not only re a sona

ble , it wa s c orre c t. And thede c la

ra t ions Luc ke tt submitte d to support his ba d fa ith c la im

did not ove rc om e the fa c t tha t he wa s not le ga lly

e ntitle d to re c ove r UIM be ne fits, nor did the y de m onstra

te an issue of fa c t re ga

rding Sta te Farm ’ s c la im s -handling proc e d ure s. Thus, the

distric t c ourt did not err in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt on Luc ke tt’ s ba d fa i th c la im
. 2 La st, the distric t c o urt did not err by re fusing to c e rtify

a que s tion re ga

rding Stat e Farm ’ s se toff to the W a s hington Supre m e C o urt. A fe d e ra l c o urt m ay c e rtify que stions of sta

te la wto the W a shington Supre m e C ourt if the dispute d issue is not

“ c l e arly de te rm ine d” and is “ ne c e ssa ry . . . to dispose

of [the c a se ] .” W a sh. R e v.

2 The distric t c ourt a

ppropria te ly e xe rc ise d its disc re tion to de ny Luc ke tt’ s re que s t for a dditiona l disc ove ry unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e d

ure (FR C P) 56(d) a s it wa s unlike ly

tha t furthe r disc ove ry

would ha ve ge ne ra te d a

ge nuine issue of m ate ria l fa c t. Se e SEC v . Ste in , 906 F.3d 823, 833 (9th C ir. 2018).

4C ode § 2.60.020; Amak e r v . K i ng C ounty , 540 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th C ir. 2008). C e rtific ation is optiona

l, howe v e r, and a

distric t c ourt’ s re fusa l to c e rtify a que stion is re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion. Riordan v . State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. C

o. , 589 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th C ir. 2009). As discusse d , the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of W a shington la

w
— and its re fusa l to c e rtify the issue to the W a shington
c ourts— wa s re a sona

ble
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion. 3 AFFIRM E D.

3 W e have a lso c onside re d whe the r we should c e rtify a que stion to the W a shington Supre m e C ourt a nd ha ve c onc lude d

tha t c e rtific ation of a

ny sta te la w que stion is “ [un] ne c e ssa

ry . . . to dispose

of [this c a se ] .” Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 2.60.020. 5