N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KIM DONG-YOUL; M OON HEE KO,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. PAC IFIC INDEMNITY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-16741 D.C . No. 1:17-c v-00018
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of the Northe rn M ariana Isla nds R a m ona V. M anglona , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2020 ** Honolulu, Ha

wa ii B e fore : FAR

R IS, M c KEOW

N, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. W e re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of sum m ary judgm e nt denov o , Unite d State s v . W ashington , 853 F.3d 946, 961–62 (9th C ir. 2017), and we a ffirm . At this 

# F IL ED
F EB 19 2020 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).sta ge , we draw a ll justifia ble infe re nc e s in fa

v or of the non-m oving pa rty . S luime r
v . Ve rity , Inc
. , 606 F.3d 584, 587 (9th C ir. 2010). Pa c ific Inde m

nity Insura nc e C om pa ny insure d Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, whose son, driving a

c ove re d ve hic le , struc k a

pe de stria n who la te r die d. The insure r
c ove re d lia

bility ste m

m ing from

bodily injury up to a “ m axim

um lim it” of $15,000 pe r pe rson injure d. First, a lthough the polic y de fine d “ m inim

um lim its” a s $25,000, thete rm

“ m inim um lim its” is not inc lude d in the se c tion of thepolic y tha t
a ddre s se s bodily

injury . The polic y

is not a m biguous. Plaintiffs-Appe lla nts the m se l ve s a dm i tte d tha

t the a pplic a ble polic y lim it wa s $15,000. Se c ond, unde r C NM I la

w , a n individual a

ppointe d “ pe rsona l re p re se ntative ” on be ha lf of the e sta

te m ay a c t on be h a l f of the de c e de n t’ s survivors in a se pa ra te wrongful de a t

h a c tion. W e only

c onside r whe the r suc h a c tion is le ga lly binding. He re , nothing in the

C N M I wrongful de ath sta tute prohibits a

n a dm i nistra

trix or
any othe r a ppointe d “ pe rsona l re pre se ntative ” unde r the C NM I probate c ode from
se rving a s pe rsona l re pre se ntative in a wrongful de ath a c tion. S

e e 7 C M C §§ 2101–03. In fa c t, the C NM I wrongful de ath sta t ute ’ s history

c o unse ls a ga inst
sum m ary judgm e nt on this issue . It wa s m ode le d a fte r the Trust Te rritory wrongful de a th sta t ute , 6 TTC §§ 201–03, which pe rm itte d e sta te a dm inistra

tors to a c t a s pe rsona l re pre s e ntat ive in wrongful de ath a c tions. Se e , e .g. , Ho C

han J ung v . Mode
2Tour Saipan C o rp. , No. 2015-SC C -0010-C IV, 2017 W L 6623385, a t *3–4 (N. M ar. I. De c . 27, 2017); Yc hitaro v . Lotius , 3 TTR 003, a t ¶¶ 32–33 (T.T.H.C . Tr. Div. Ja n. 19, 1965). As a

re sult, unde r C NM I la

w, the pe rsona l re pre s e ntative prope rly a c c e pte d the $15,000 policy lim it a s se ttle m e nt on be ha lf of de c e de nt’ s survivors, a

nd the insure r ha s no furthe r obliga tion unde r the te rm s of the polic y . Third, the pa

rtie s ha ve produc e d no e vide nc e of a ny a c tion by

the probate
c ourt sinc e it a

ppointe d the a d

m inistra t rix in 2013. It is unc le ar whe the r that c ourt
a pprove d the $15,000 se ttle m e n t, kne w of it, im plie dly c onse n te d, or whe t

he r probat e is in fa c t still open. As suc h, sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Pla i ntiffsAppe l la n ts on theissue of proba

te c ourt a pprova l is im

prope r. AFFIRM E D.

3