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 EC ILIA V. GREGOR IO, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. GEIC O GENER

AL INSUR

A NC E C OM PANY, e t

a l. De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-17490 D.C . No. 2:10-c v-00407-JR G
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Jose ph R . Goodwin, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 13, 2013 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd VANC E, C h ie f Distric t Judge
. ** Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt C e c ilia Gre gorio a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt's gra nt of
sum m ary judgm e nt to de fe n da

n t GEIC O Insura

nc e C om p any on he r c la im s of 

# FIL ED
JUL 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Sarah S. Va

nc e , C hie f Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion. 1bre a c h of c ontra c t a n d bre a c h of good fa ith a

nd fa ir de a ling. The se c la im s a re ba se d on GEIC O's re fusa l to pa y Gre gorio uninsure d

/unde rinsure d

(" UM /UIM " ) be ne fits unde r he r um

bre lla insura nc e polic y . W e have jurisdic tion ove r this a ppe a l pursua nt to 28 U.S.C
. § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1

I This c ourt re vie ws de nov o the distric t c ourt's gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt. B uono v. Norton

, 371 F.3d 543, 545 (9th C ir. 2004). " Sum m ary judgm e n t is
a ppropria te whe n the re is no ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a nd the m oving pa

rty is

1 As a pre lim ina

ry m a tte r, we a ddre ss GEIC O's m otion to strike se ve ra l portions of Gre gorio's Exc e rpts of R e c ord (EOR). GEIC O c onte nds tha t the se doc um e nts we re not file d with thedistric t c ourt, a s is re quire d by Fe de ra l R

ule of Appe l lat e Proc e dure 10(a ). That m otion is GR ANTED IN PAR T. Gre gorio ha s wa ive d a

ny argum e nts ba se d

on fa c ts not be fore the distric t c ourt whe n it re nde re d sum m ary judgm e n t. Se e Pe te rson v. Highla n d M usic , Inc ., 140 F.3d 1313, 1321 (9th C ir. 1998). W e the re fore will not a dm i t into the re c ord doc um e nts file d

in the distric t c ourt a fte r its c o nside ra tion of thesum m ary judgm e nt m otion. Ac c ordingly , we strike those portions of Gre gorio's EOR tha t we re not be fore the distric t c o urt be fore it de nie d Gre gorio's m otion to re c o nside r the g rant of sum

m ary judgm e nt, to wit: (1) All pa ge s of pla intiff's Exhibit 1 e x c e pt 1-8, 14-21, 25-26, 29-30, 37, 41-53, 58-59, 62-63, 65-68, 85-105, 110-125, 129-152, 162-173, 182- 185, 194-201, 206-212, 214-221, 226-233, 235, a nd 238-241. (2) ER Vol. 2, pa ge 82 (the first pa ge of pla intiff's Exhibit 2). (3) Pla intiff's Exhibit 5. GEIC O 's m otion to strike is de nie d insofa r a s it re l a te s to Exhibit 1, pa ge s 1- 8, 66-68, 85, 129, 151-52, 210-12; a n d Exhibit 2, pa

ge 2, be c a use the se doc um e nts we re pre se nte d to the distric t c ourt with plaintiff's m otion for re c onside ra tion. 2e ntitle d to judgm e n t a s a m a tte r of la

w." Ka ruk Tribe of C a l . v. U.S. Fore st Se rv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1017 (9th C ir. 2012). II The distric t c ourt wa s c orre c t in holding tha t Gre gorio's um

bre lla polic y
una m biguously la c ks UM /

UIM c ove ra ge . The polic y e xpre s sly e xc lude s

" [p] e rsona l injury or prope rty dam a ge re sulting from an uninsure d or unde rinsure d
m otorist c la im unle ss a

pre m ium is shown for the

uninsure d or unde rinsure d
m otorist c ove ra ge in the de c la ra tions." The de c la

rations pa ge , in turn, doe s not list
a pre m ium for UM /

UIM c o ve ra ge . M ore ove r, the um bre lla polic y provide s only third-pa rty lia bility c ove ra ge , a s it c o ve rs only " dam a ge s a

n insure d m

ust pa y (1) le ga lly ; or (2) by

a gre e m e nt with [GEIC O 's] writte n c onse nt; be c a use of pe rsona l injury or prope rty

dam a ge c o ve re d by

this polic y ." The se provisions
una m biguously de m onstra

te tha t the um b re lla polic y

doe s not provide

UM /UIM
c ove ra ge . III Gre gorio a

rgue s tha t e v e n if the pla in la

ngua ge of the polic y

doe s not inc l ude UM /UIM c o v e ra ge , the distric t c ourt e rre d by fa iling to ta

ke into a c c ount he r re a sona

ble e xp e c t a tions of c ove ra ge .

3In Ariz ona , c o urts a pply the re a sona

ble e xpe c t a tions doc trine to c la i m s ba se d on sta

n da rdiz e d insura

nc e c ontra c ts. Se e First Am . Title Ins. C o. v. Ac tion Ac quisitions, LLC , 187 P.3d 1107, 1113 (Ariz . 2008) (e n ba nc ); Darne r M otor Sa le s, Inc . v. Unive rsa l Unde rwrite rs Ins. C o., 682 P.2d 388, 396-99 (Ariz . 1984). Ariz ona c ourts ge ne ra lly

lim it the a

pplic a tion of thedoc t

rine to four c o nte xts: 1. W he re t he c ontra c t te rm s, a lthough not am biguous to the c ourt, c a

nnot be unde rstood by

the re a sona

bly inte llige n t c onsum e r who m ight c he c k on his or he r rights, the c ourt will inte rpre t the m in light of the obje c tive , re a sona ble e xpe c tations of theave ra ge insure d; 2. W he re the insure d did not re c e ive full a n d a de quate notic e of the te rm in que stion, and the provision is e ithe r unusua l or une xpe c te d, or one that e m a sc ulate s a

ppa re nt c ove ra ge ; 3. W he re s om e a c t ivity whic h c an be re a sona bly a ttribute d to the i nsure r would c re a t e an obje c tive im pr es si on of c ove ra ge i n the m ind of a re a sona ble insure d; 4. W he re s om e a c tivity re a sona bly attributa

ble t o the insure r ha s induc e d a pa rtic ula r insure d re a s ona

bly to be lie ve that he ha s c ove ra ge , a lthough suc h c ove ra ge is e xpre ssly and una m biguously de nie d by

the polic y . Gordinie r v. Ae tna

C a s. & Sur. C o., 742 P.2d 277, 283-84 (Ariz . 1987) (inte rna l
c ita tions omitte d). Gre gorio's c la im fa lls into none

of the se c a t e gorie s. The first Gordinie r c a te g ory is not a pplic a ble be c a use a re a sona bly inte llige nt c onsum e r c ould e a sily unde rsta nd tha t the re is no sugge stion of UM /UIM c ove ra ge in the GEIC O polic y . The e xc lusion of UM /UIM c ove ra ge is itse lf pla i n, a

nd the c ove ra ge provision c le arly sta te s tha t the polic y

c ove rs only

4dam a ge s the insure d m ust pa y . Furthe r, the polic y

e xc lude s " pe rsona l injury to a ny insure d," and provide s tha t it pa y s da m a ge s " on be ha lf of," not " to," an insure d. The se c ond c a te g o ry

is ina pplic a ble be c a use Gre g orio re c e ive d a

c o py of the polic y , whic h

se t forth the UM /UIM e xc lusion in pla in la ngua ge on the third pa ge of a six-pa ge doc um e nt. The e xc lusion wa s not burie d in a n une xpe c te d se c tion of
a volum inous polic y . Furthe r, the provision ha rdly " e m a sc ulate s a

ppa re n t
c ove ra ge ," a s the c ove ra ge provision of the polic y sta te s tha t it a pplie s to the insure d's lia

bility to pa y dam a ge s, the polic y

is e n title d " Pe rsona l Um

bre lla Lia b ility Insura nc e Agre e m e nt," and the polic y inc lude s no first-pa rty c ove ra ge . Nor doe s Gre gorio's c a se fa ll within e ithe r the third or thefourth Gordinie r
c a te gory . He r thre a d

ba re re c olle c tion of a

nine -y e ar old c onve rsa tion with a GEIC O re pre se ntative , in whic h she doe s not re c a ll whe the r UM /UIM c ove ra ge
wa s m e ntione d, doe s not provide m ore tha n a " m e re . . . sc i ntilla

of e v ide nc e " supporting her re a sona

ble e xp e c tations c la im . Ande rson v. Libe rty Lobby , Inc ., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Gre gorio c ould not dispute tha t a diffe re nt GEIC O
re pre se ntative c a lle d he r ba c k with a quote for an um

bre lla polic y . Tha

t
re pre se ntative de nie d ha

ving m a de any re pre se ntation to Gre gorio tha t UM /UIM insura nc e wa s inc lude d in the polic y and a ve rre d tha

t she e xpla ine d tha

t the polic y

5wa s a

lia bility polic y . Gre gorio c ould not dispute this te stim ony

be c a use she c ould not re c a ll the de ta ils of thec onve rsa tion. Thus, the re c o rd c onta ins no proba tive e vide nc e tha

t GEIC O e nga g e d in a

ny
a c tivity that would c re a te an obje c tive im pre ssion of c ove ra ge in the m ind of a
re a s ona ble insure d, or tha

t induc e d this pa

rtic ula r insure d to be lie ve tha

t she ha d
c ove ra ge . Se e Gordinie r, 742 P.2d a t 284. Gre gorio's re c olle c t ion is too va gue to indic a te tha

t she c le arly

c onve y e d to GEIC O he r de sire tha t UM /UIM c ove ra ge be inc l ude d in he r um

bre lla polic y , m

uc h le ss tha

t GEIC O a ssure d he r that the
c ove ra ge would be inc l ude d. Se e First Am . Title Ins. C o ., 187 P.3d a t 1114 (noting that a subje c t ive e xpe c tation of c ove ra ge on the pa rt of the insure d, without more , doe s not trigge r the re a sona ble e xpe c t a tions doc trine ). De viation from the writte n te rm s of a n insura nc e polic y

m ust be ba se d on som e thing m ore tha n a n insure d's

" fe rve nt hope usua lly

e nge nde re d by

loss," Da rne r, 682 P.2d a

t 395, a nd the
re a s ona ble e xpe c tations doc trine " doe s not re q uire insure rs to re a d the ir insure ds'
m inds." Se c . Ins. C o . of Ha rtford v. Ande rse n, 763 P.2d 251, 258 (Ariz . C t. App. 1986), va c a te d in pa

rt, 763 P.2d 246 (Ariz . 1988). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not e rr in gra

nting sum m a ry judgm e nt.

6IV

Give n the una

m biguous la

ngua g e of the polic y , a

nd tha t Gre gorio ha s fa ile d to de m onstra

te that she ha d a re a sona

ble e xpe c tation of UM/UIM c ove ra ge , he r ba d fa ith c la i m

a ga inst GEIC O is a l so without me rit. Se e De e se v. Sta te Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. C o., 838 P.2d 1265, 1267-68 (Ariz . 1992) (e n ba nc ) (ba d fa ith
c la im re quire s showing " the a

bse nc e of a

re a sona ble ba sis for de ny ing be ne fits of the p olic y and the de fe nda

nt's knowle dge or re c kle ss disre ga rd of the la c k of a
re a s ona ble ba sis for de ny ing the c la im " ). V Gre gorio a lso c onte nds tha t the distric t

c ourt e rrone o usly

re lie d on two
artic le s de sc ribing um

bre lla polic i e s in its a

na ly sis of Gre gorio's c ove ra g e . The distric t c o urt's c i tation of theartic le s wa s not a n a buse of disc re tion sinc e the c ourt
re fe rre d to the artic le s only to c onfirm its le ga l c onc lusion tha

t Gre gorio's polic y provide d only

lia b ility insura nc e . In a ny e ve nt, be c a

use the polic y

a t issue
una m biguously e xc l ude d UM /UIM c ove ra ge and Gre g orio's re a sona ble
e xpe c tations c l a im

fa ils, a ny suc h e rror is ha

rm l e ss. VI B e c a use we hold tha

t Gre gorio's re a sona

b le e xpe c tations c la i m

fa ils on the
m e rits, we ne e d not a ddre ss GEIC O's a rgum e n t tha

t the c la im is ba

rre d by the 7sta

tute of lim ita

tions. Se e Unite d State s v. Gonz a le s, 669 F.3d 974, 979 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ourt of a

ppe a ls " m ay a ffirm

on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord" ). AFFIRM E D
.

8