N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JOSE IVAN R

AM OS, individual, on be ha lf of the m se lve s a

nd on be ha lf of a l l pe rsons simila

rly situa te d; JOSE HER NANDEZ, individua

l, on be ha lf of the m se lve s and on be ha lf of a l l pe rsons sim ila rly situa te d, Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. INFINITY INSUR

ANC E C OM PANY, a

n India na C orporation, doing busine ss in C a l ifornia , De fe nda

n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-56500 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01151-JFW -C W
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia John F. W a lte r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 7, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, NOONAN, a n d PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED OCT 24 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 sole issue on a ppe a l is whe the r the distric t c o urt e rre d by granting
sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Infinity

Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Infinity ” ). 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a nd a ffirm . W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s gran t of sum

m ary judgm e n t de novo. Infinity ha d the right to re sc ind JoseHe rnande z ’ s insura nc e polic y

be c a use He rnande z c onc e a le d a

m at e ria l fa c t. C a l. Ins. C ode § 331. Infinity spe c ific a lly
a ske d He rnande z to list “ [a ] ll pe rsons a g e 15 or olde r, LIC ENSED OR NOT, who
re side with thea

pplic ant a nd a ny othe r drive rs of the ve hic le (s) on this
a pplic a tion.” He rnande z fa i le d to list on the a pplic a tion thenam e of his son Jose Ivan R am os, who wa s 19 y e ars old a nd live d with He rnande z at the tim e the
a pplic a tion wa s subm itte d to Infinity . The fa ilure to list R am os on theinsura

nc e
a pplic a tion wa s a “ m a te ria l” c onc e a lm e n t. Se e Mitc he ll v . Unite d N at’l Ins. C

o. , 127 C a l. App. 4th 457, 476 (2005) (holding a c onc e a le d fa c t

is “ m a te ria l” if the non-disc lose d inform a tion would ha ve an im pa c t on the risk tha

t the insura

n c e
c om pa ny a s sum e s an d the te rm s unde r whic h it would issue an insura n c e polic y ). M ore ove r, He rnande z and R a m os c la im

tha t a ll of Infinity ’ s C a lifornia
a utom obile insura

nc e polic ie s provide le ss uninsure d m otorist (“UM ” ) c o ve ra ge

1 Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts do not a

ppe a l the distric t

c ourt’ s ruling de ny ing c la ss c e rtific a tion or De fe nda n t-Appe lle e s ’ s m otion for judgme nt on theple a dings.

2tha

n is re quire d by

C a lifornia ’ s uninsure d m otorist sta tute . C a l. Ins. C ode § 11580.2(b). Howe v e r, e ve n if Infinity ’ s C a lifornia a utom obile insura

n c e polic ie s
c ould be inte rpre te d a s providing le ss c ove ra ge tha n re quire d

by C a lifornia ’ s uninsure d m otorist sta

tute , the n C a lifornia Insura nc e C ode § 11580.2(b) provide s that the te rm s of C a lifornia ’ s UM sta tute would be re a d into a l l of Infinity ’ s C a lifornia a utom obile insura

nc e polic ie s a s a

m a tte r of la

w. S e e Mid-C e ntury Ins. C o. v . Gardne r , 9 C a l. App. 4th 1205, 1220 (1992) (“ [A] polic y whic h purports to provide a m ore re s tric tive c o ve ra ge tha n tha t se t forth in the[UM ] sta tute will not be give n e ffe c t.” ); se e also Hartford Fire Ins. C o. v . Marc i , 4 C a l . 4th 318, 324 (1992) (“ Inde e d, the provisions of the [UM ] sta tute are a pa rt of e ve ry

polic y of insura nc e to whic h it is a

pplic a ble .” ). Ea c h side to be ar its own c osts a nd fe e s.

AFFIRM E D.

3