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 APITOL SPEC IALTY INSUR ANC E C ORPOR ATION, Plaintiff-Appe lle e , v. B IG SKY DIAGNOSTIC IM AGING, INC ., De fe nda

nt-Appe lla

nt. No. 20-35264

D.C . No.1:17-c v-00054-SPW -TJC
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d April 16, 2021 * * Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SELNA, Se nior Distric t Judge
. * * * 

# FIL ED APR 21 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3.
* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s tha

t this c a se is suita

ble for de c ision without ora

l a rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R
. App. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ja m e s V. Se lna , Se nior Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 1B ig Sky Dia gnostic Im a g ing, Inc . (“ B SDI” ) a ppe a ls the sum

m ary judgm e nt e nte re d in fa

v or of C a pitol Spe c ia lty

Insura nc e C orporation (“ C SIC ” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, re vie w de novo, C lic k s Billiards, Inc . v . Six s hoote rs, Inc
. , 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt did not err be c a use no c ove ra g e e xists for B SDI’ s c la im s unde r e ithe r the 2015 or 2016 Polic ie s. W e ne e d not c onside r whe the r c ove ra ge e xiste d

unde r the 2014 Polic y . As to the2015 Polic y , first, B SDI re c e i ve d notic e of the Ha rby s’ c la im during the2015 Polic y y e ar. B e c a use filing a M onta

na M e d ic a l Le g a l Pa

ne l (“ M M LP” ) Applic ation is a pre re quisiteto filing suit, M o nt. C ode Ann. § 27-6- 701, the Applic ation put B SDI on notic e of the Ha rby s’ c la im
. M ore ove r, B SDI
wa s origina lly

liste d on the M M LP Applic ation a s a pa rty a ga inst whom a

c la im
wa s be ing m a de and wa s c ha nge d to a ne c e ssa ry and prope r party

only in the
re vise d Applic ation with no othe r substa ntive c ha nge s. Se c ond, B SDI did not notify C SIC of the c la im

until a fte r the e nd of the Polic y y e ar, de s pite the Polic y ’ s re quire m e nt tha

t “ ‘ C la im s’ m

ust be first m a d e a ga inst theInsure d a nd re porte d to [] [C SIC ] during thePolic y Pe riod.” Third, thenotic e -pre j udic e rule doe s not sa

ve B SDI from

its fa ilure to notify

C SIC . The notic e -pre

judic e rule doe s not a

pply whe re , a s he re , a

pa rty ha s a c la im s-m a de insura

nc e polic y . ALPS Prop. & C as.
2Ins. C

o. v . K e lle r, Re y nolds, Drak

e , J ohnson & Gille s pie , P.C
. , 403 M ont. 307, 317 (2021); Estate

of Gle ason v . C

e nt. Unified Life

Ins. C o. , 350 P.3d 349, 354 (M ont. 2015). Simila

rly , M onta

na ’ s a nti-forfe i ture sta

tute and princ iple of non-m ate ria l bre a c h a re ina pplic a ble a s the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt ha s not inde pe nde ntly
a pplie d the m

to insura nc e polic y

c ove ra ge c a se s . Estate

of Gle ason , 350 P.3d a

t 355. No c ove ra ge e xists under the 2016 Polic y e ithe r. The prior-knowle dge
e xc e ption pre c lude s c ove ra ge , a nd B SDI forfe ite d

its re m a ining a

rgum e nt c onc e rning c ontinuous a

nd uninte rrupte d c o ve ra ge by fa iling to raise it in the distric t c o urt. Se e O’Guinn v . Lov e loc k C o rr. C tr ., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 n.3 (9th C ir. 2007) (a

rgum e nts not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt ge ne ra lly are forfe ite d). C ontra ry to B SDI’ s a

rgum e nt, no e xc e ptions to tha t rule a pply he re . Se eBolk

e r v . C omm’r , 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th C ir. 1985) (sta t ing e xc e ptions to forfe i ture rule ). The prior-knowle d ge e xc e ption a pplie s be c a

use B SDI “ k

ne w, ha d be e n told, [or] should ha

ve known” of a

c la im a ga inst it a

t the tim e it c ontra c te d with C SIC for an insura nc e polic y . Unde r the subje c tive -obje c tive te st a ffirm e d in ALPS , B SDI ha d re a son to know of the c la im a ga inst it give

n the M M LP Applic ation. This is so de spite Dr. C ole ’ s re pre se ntation tha t B SDI wa s not “ aware of a ny a c tua l
or a lle g e d fa c t, c irc um s ta

nc e , situa tion, e rror or om ission, whic h c an re a s ona bly be

3e xpe c te d to re sult in a C la i m , suit or proc e e ding be ing m a de a ga inst” B SDI. For the s am e re a sons, B SDI’ s fa ilure to disc l ose the Ha rby s’ a lle g ations in its 2016 Polic y a pplic at ion a lso pre c lude s c o ve ra ge . Se e DC DE No. 22-7 a t 4 (noting tha

t the “polic y

for whic h Applic ant is a

pply ing . . . will not insure for any C la im s tha

t c an re a sona

bly be e xpe c te d

to a rise from any a c tua l or a lle g e d fa c t

. . . known to
any Applic ant be fore the Inc e ption Da te of the polic y .” ). 2. C e rtific ation of theque stion whe the r the notic e -pre judic e rule a

pplie s to c la im s-m a de polic ie s is unne c e ssa ry . C e rtific ation to a

sta t e supre m e c ourt is not obliga tory . Le h man Bros. v . Sc he in , 416 U.S. 386, 390–91 (1974). Ac c ordingly ,

“ [w] e invoke the c e rtific ation proc e ss only a fte r c are ful c onside ration a nd do not do so lightly
. ” K

re m e n v . C

ohe n , 325 F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th C i r. 2003). He re , c e rtific ation is unne c e ssa

ry in light of the

M onta na Supre m e C ourt’ s de c ision in ALPS
. 403 M ont. a

t 311. To the

e xte nt tha

t the ALPS de c ision le ft c e rta in que stions una

nswe re d, the re is no re a son to pre sum e that the distric t c o urt’ s opinion a bout how the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt would a c t wa s in e rror. Se e Dimidow ic h v . Be l l & How e ll , 803 F.2d 1473, 1482 (9th C ir.1986), m odifie d at 810 F.2d 1517 (9th C ir.1987) (" Whe re the sta t e ’ s highe st c ourt ha s not de c ide d a n issue , the ta sk of the fe de ra l c ourts is to pre dic t how thesta te high c ourt would
re solve it.” ). It is unlike l y tha t the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt would ha ve de c ide d

4diffe re ntly
. Se e , e .g. , Estate

of Gle ason , 350 P.3d 349; se ealso Atl. C as. Ins. C o. v . Gre y tak , 350 P.3d 63, 70 (M ont. 2015) (M c Kinnon, c onc urring). AFFIRM E D.

5