Cindy Lee v. Government Employees Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CINDY LEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland
corporation; DOES, One through One
Hundred, inclusive, and each of them,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15524
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00782-LEK-
BMK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 16, 2015**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Cindy Lee challenges a district court order denying her underinsured
motorist (UIM) coverage. Specifically, Ms. Lee claims that GEICO was statutorily
FILED
OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

required to reoffer her UIM benefits after her daughter and two vehicles were
added to her auto insurance policy, and that because GEICO did not make this
offer, she is entitled to receive those benefits as a matter of law. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district court’s
decision to grant GEICO summary judgment. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632
F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir. 2011).
1. The district court concluded that, under Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaneshiro,
998 P.2d 490 (Haw. 2000), no material changes were made to Ms. Lee’s insurance
policy. This was not error, as the Kaneshiro court indicated that there would be no
material change where an individual is added, vehicles are added, and premiums
increase, but the named insured remains the same on the policy. See id. at 500.
Thus, the district court correctly concluded that because Ms. Lee and her husband
remained as named insureds on the policy, the addition of vehicles and the addition
of a driver were not material changes.
2. Ms. Lee also argues that the district court erred when it placed the burden
of proof on her as the insured. But the district court simply recited a correct
statement of Hawaiian law: that insureds have the initial burden of proving
coverage under a policy. See Sentinel Ins. Co. v. First Ins. Co. of Haw., 875 P.2d
894, 909 n. 13 (Haw. 1994). To do so was not error.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --