NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE E. LARSON, an individual,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN/JANE DOES, I

- X,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 16496
D.C. No. 1:19

- cv - 00150

- JAO

- RT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 18, 2022 * * San Francisco, California
Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, ** * District Judge. Appellant Lonnie Larson appeals the d istrict c ourt’s grant of summary judgment for Appellee Libert y Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty”) ,

* 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).

*** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

holding , based on a prior settlement agreement and the applicable statute of limitations, that Larson’s tort claims arising out of the handling of his workers’ compensation claim are barred

. We have jurisdictio n to review Larson’s appeal
under 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91

. In February 2002, Larson filed for workers’ compensation under a policy issued by Liberty , claiming he was struck by lightning while at work (the “Incident”)

. The Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations determined
that Larson’s claim was compensable

. Liberty appealed. From 2008

– 12, Larson
filed f ive lawsuits against Liberty, alleging that Liberty handled Larson’s workers’ compensation claim in bad fai th

. On May 11, 2015, Larson and Liberty entered into a “Release, Settlement and Indemnification Agreement” ( the “2015 Agreement”) , which settled Larson’s suit against Liberty and released Larson’s claims against Liberty “arising out of [its] handling of [his] claim for Workers Compensation Benefits” relating to the
Incident. The 2015 Agreement “applies to all injuries, damages and losses resulting from matters related to the subject accident, even though now unanticipated, unexpected and unknown , ” and states Larson ’s intent to release Liberty “ of and from any and all claims that he may have against [it] for all items of damage

. . . and/or any other past or future damages claimed or that could be claimed by [Larson] in connection with the Claims Rel eased , ” and Larson also3

acknowledges that he had entered the 2015 Agreement with full knowledge , and advice of counsel, and that the release constituted the parties’ entire agreement. Larson signed the release and was paid consideration. In 2017, Larson s ettled his underlying workers’ compensation claim

. On March 26, 2019, Larson filed the suit against Liberty at issue here , alleging that Liberty interfere d with Larson’s receiving workers ’ compensation and payment of medical bills resulting from the I ncident. Larson contend ed he understood the 2015 Agreement did not release those claims

. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The d istrict c ourt granted summary judgment to Liberty based on the 2015 Agreement

. In the alternative , the
d istrict c ourt found Larson’s claims untimely.
We review de novo the summary judgment and may affirm on any ground supported by the record

. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. Newsom , 919 F.3d 1148,
1150

– 51 (9th Cir. 2019)

. T his Court “must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the
relevant substantive law.” Christian v. Umpqua Bank , 984 F.3d 801, 808 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Dominguez

- Curry v. Nev. Tr ansp. Dep ’ t , 424 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
1. Larson’s claims are barred by the 2015 Agreement. We review de

novo the district court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement

. Parsons v.4

Ryan , 949 F.3d 443, 453 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied sub nom
. Shinn v. Jensen , 141 S. Ct. 1054 (2021)

. Under Hawaiian law, “[a] properly executed settlement agreement generally precludes future litigation for its parties.” State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co. v. Pac. Rent

-

All, Inc. , 978 P.2d 753, 761 (Haw. 1999). Here, the 2015 Agreemen t’s plain language resolves all claims relating to the handling of Larson’s workers’ compensation claim, excluding only the workers’ compensation claim
itself

. All of Larson’s claims relate to Larson fil ing for workers’ compensation and Liberty ’s handling of that claim

. The se claims are covered by the release in the 2015 Agreement. Larson argues that the 2015 Agreement is ambiguous, and that parol
evidence must be consulted to deter mine the parties’ intent. The parol evidence rule “precludes the use of extrinsic evidence to vary or contradict the terms of an unambiguous and integrated contract.” Hawaiian Ass’n of Seventh

- Day Adventists v. Wong , 305 P.3d 452, 461 (Haw. 2013). “ A co ntract is ambiguous when its terms are reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning. ” Id. The 2015 Agreement is not ambiguous as to the broad release given.
Larson makes two arguments for the first time on appeal: that he misunderstood the release in the 2015 Agreement because he was defrauded by
Libert y ’s attorneys , and that in any case , Hawaii ’s public policy counsels against
release of future claims.5

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, this Court does not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. El Paso City v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc. , 217 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). Here, there are no such circumstances.
Larson contends that his decla ration filed below said Liberty’s attorneys used “vague, ambiguous, confusing, and contradictory language that didn’t make sense
to me at the time

. . . they were tricking me to insulate themselves.” T his claim

was not briefed below, and so it wa s not preserved for appeal.
As to his public policy argument, the d istrict c ourt expressly noted that
Larson “has not argued that , under Hawai’i law, a release of future claims

. . . is unenforceable as a matter of public policy or otherwise.” Accordingly , thi s argument wa s waived and will not be considered

. 2. In the alternative, the d istrict c ourt properly found that Larson’s
claims were barred by the two

- year statute of limitations

. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657

- 7; EEOC v. NCL Am ., 535 F. Supp. 2d 1149, 1169 (D. Haw. 2008); Christiansen v. First Ins. Co. of Haw ., 967 P.2d 639, 647 (Haw. Ct. App. 1988), as amended (Apr. 22, 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds , 963 P.2d 345 (Haw. 1998). Hawaii tort claims accrue wh en the p laintiff “discovers or should have discovered the negligent act, the damage, and the causal connection
between the former and the latter. ” Hays v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu , 917 P.2d 718, 723 ( Haw. 1996)

.6

The pertinent date for assessing timeliness here is March 26, 2017, two years
before the C omplaint was filed. The C omplaint contains no allegations of wrongful acts occurring or discovered after March 26, 2017 , nor did Plaintiff identify any such acts at the summary judgment hearing

. T he statute of limitations
thus ran before this lawsuit was filed

. Larson’s contention that the statute of limitations was tolled until March 28, 2017, when Liberty paid his workers’ compensation claim , is without merit

. See generally Hun v. Ctr. Props

. , 626 P.2d 182 ( Haw. 1981) (holding that plaintiffs’
claims were time

- barred and that the limitations period was not “tolled during the pendency of the worker’s compensation proceedings” because the “purposes underlying the statute of limitations would clearly be frustrated by tolling the statute” during such proceedings). In his Reply, Larson argues for the first time that Hawaii’s six

- year statute of limitations for breach of contract should apply. Because Larson did not m ake this argument before the d istrict c ourt or in his Opening Brief, this argument wa s forfeited

. AFFIRMED
.