N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT B ANJOSA HOSPITALITY, LLC , a M onta na lim ite d lia

b ility c om pa ny , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. HISC OX, INC .,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 18-35905 D.C . No. 1:17-c v-00152-TJC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

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

na T im othy J. C ava n, M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 12, 2019 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GR

AB E R and B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s , a

nd EZR A, *** Distric t

Judge
. Pla intiff B anjosa

Hospita lity , LLC , tim e ly a p pe a ls the distric t

c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt for De fe nda

nt Hisc ox, Inc ., in this dive rsity a c tion ra ising 

# F IL ED
DEC 19 2019 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. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion.c la im s c onc e rning M onta na insura nc e la w . R e vie wing de novo, Da vis v. Gua

m , 932 F.3d 822, 829 (9th C ir. 2019), we a ffirm
. 1. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly he ld tha t the insure d

did not report the c la im within thetim e a llowe d by the c la im s-m a de -and-re porte d insura n c e polic y . B e c a use the que stion of c ove ra ge " is re a dily de te rm ine d from

the insura

nc e polic y in que stion a

nd doe s not c ha lle nge or de pe nd on theve ra c ity of the a lle gations in the unde rly ing c o m

pla i nt," we m

ust a sse ss c ove ra ge . Em

p’ rs M ut. C a s. C o. v. Esta te of B uc kle s, 443 P.3d 534, 538 (M ont. 2019). For tha t re a son, the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Tidy m an’ s M g m

t. Se rv., Inc . v. Da

vis, 330 P.3d 1139 (M o nt. 2014), doe s not re quire a diffe re nt a

pproa c h. The insure d re p o rte d the c la im to Hisc ox in M ay

2014 but the

re porting
c ondition c le arly

re quire d re porting no la

t e r tha n Ja nua ry 2014; a c c o rdingly , the insure d re porte d the c la im too la te . The re porting c ondition is c l e ar: It re quire d that the insure d re port the c l a im by a c e rta in tim e from

whe n " a C la im is first m a de
a ga inst a ny Insure d." (Em

pha sis a dde d .) If, a s B an

josa a sse rts, the c la im wa s first
m a de in e m a ils in 2013, the n the re porting of thec la im wa s too la te , be c a use the
re porting de a dline wa s Ja nua ry 2014 a t the late s t. In the a lte rnative , if the c la im wa s first m a de whe n the pe rtine nt c o m pla int
wa s file d in 2014, then the polic y did not c o ve r the c la i m

be c a u se it wa s not
2" m a de ," a s c l e arly re quire d by the polic y , within the

polic y pe riod, a nd the
re porting re quire m e nt ha s no re le va nc e . The polic y

de fine s a " c la im " a s, in
re le va nt pa rt, " any notic e re c e ive d by

the Insure d of a de m and for Da m a g e s or for
non-m one ta

ry re lie f." The two e m a ils c ite d by B anjosa thre ate n possiblefuture le ga l a c tion a g a inst theinsure d (or third pa rtie s), but thee m a ils do not c onta in a pre s e nt de m and a ga inst theinsure d for da m a ge s or non-m o ne ta

ry re lie f. Unde r this a lte rnative a

pproa c h, be c a

use the c la im wa s not m a de until 2014 a nd the polic y pe riod e xpire d in 2013, the c la i m wa s m a de too la

te , so the re wa s no c ove ra ge . Eithe r way , the polic y

c le arly e x c lude s c ove ra ge . 2. The " notic e -pre

judic e " rule announc e d in Esta te of Gle a son v. C e nt. Unite d Life Ins. C o., 350 P.3d 349 (M ont. 2015), a nd Atla n t ic C a s. Ins. C o. v. Gre ytak, 350 P.3d 63 (M ont. 2015), doe s not a p ply to c la im s-m a de -a

nd-re porte d polic ie s. Se e , e .g., Sa fe c o Title Ins. C o. v. Ga nnon, 774 P.2d 30, 33–36 (W a sh. C t. App. 1989) (pe rsua sive ly e xpla ining why

the notic e -pre

judic e rule doe s not a

pply to c l a im s-m a de -and-re porte d polic ie s unde r W a shington la w). B a njosa ha s not pointe d to a

single jurisdic tion tha

t ha s a pplie d the rule to c l a im s-m a de -andre porte d polic ie s a

nd, " [n] a tionwide ," othe r jurisdic tions " uniform [ly ] " have
re je c te d the argum e nt. She rwood B ran ds, Inc . v. Gre at Am . Ins. C o., 13 A.3d 1268, 1283 (C t. App. M d. 2011); e .g., Pa c . Em p’ rs Ins. C o. v. Supe rior C t, 270
3C a l. R

ptr. 779, 784 (C t. App. 1990); Ga nnon, 774 P.2d a

t 33–36; Ande rson v. Aul, 862 N.W .2d 304, 317 (W i sc . 2015). W e se e nothing in M onta na la w sugge sting that the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt would re a c h the opposite c onc lusion. 3. The insure d’ s re a sona

ble e xpe c tations do not re quire c ove ra ge he re .

" [T] h e re a sona

ble e xpe c tat i ons doc trine is ina pplic a ble whe re the te rm s of the polic y at issue c le arly

de m onstra

te an inte nt to e xc lude c ove ra ge . " Fishe r e x re l. M c C artne y

v. Sta te Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. C o., 305 P.3d 861, 867 (M o nt. 2013) (c ita tion omitte d). The insure d c ould not re a sona bly have e xpe c te d c ove ra ge unde r
a c la im s-m a d e -an d-re porte d polic y for a c la im tha t wa s ne ithe r m a de nor re porte d in tim e . AFFIRM E D.

4