The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-35315•Benito Cervantes, an individual v. Foremost Insurance Company, a foreign insurer
16-35315Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApr 11, 2018
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENITO CERVANTES, an individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,
a foreign insurer,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-35315
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-03172-SMJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Salvador Mendoza, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Benito Cervantes appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendant Foremost Insurance Company. Reviewing de
FILED
APR 11 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
novo and taking all facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Am. Tower Corp.
v. City of San Diego, 763 F.3d 1035, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014), we affirm.
The insurance policy does not cover the damage to Plaintiff’s mobile home.
It covers only "direct, sudden and accidental loss of, or damage to" the mobile
home. Under Washington law, the word "sudden," when not otherwise defined,
means "unforeseen and unexpected." Anderson & Middleton Lumber Co. v.
Lumbermen’s Mut. Cas. Co., 333 P.2d 938, 941 (Wash. 1959). Undisputed
evidence shows that the damage about which Plaintiff complains developed over a
period of up to a year or longer and was readily detectable. The damage was thus
not "sudden."
Plaintiff’s argument that the damage was "sudden" because he failed to
detect it misses the point. What matters is whether the damage itself was
detectable, not whether the insured party actually detected it. See id. at 940 (noting
that the damage in that case could be considered sudden "as long as its progress
was undetect[a]ble").
AFFIRMED.
2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.