Siena Del Lago Condominium Association, a Washington nonprofit corporation v. American Fire and Casualty Company

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIENA DEL LAGO CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit
corporation,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Defendant,
and
MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 13-36005
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00251-TSZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Thomas S. Zilly, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 4, 2016
Seattle, Washington
FILED
APR 20 2016
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.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Siena Del Lago Condominium Association (Siena) appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee Mt. Hawley
Insurance Company (Mt. Hawley). Siena contends that the district court erred in
holding that Mt. Hawley reasonably denied coverage for property damage at
Siena’s condominium building caused by faulty workmanship and wind-driven
rain. Siena maintains that Mt. Hawley was required to provide coverage based on
its difference in conditions policy because Siena’s underlying policies did not
provide coverage for the damage.
Under its policy provisions, Mt. Hawley reasonably denied coverage.
Exclusion 7(A)(3) bars coverage for other perils to the same extent they are insured
against under the underlying policies, and Exclusion 7(P) bars coverage for faulty
workmanship. Summary judgment was warranted because Siena failed to raise a
material issue of fact regarding coverage for faulty workmanship, wind-driven rain,
collapse, or any combined perils. See Sharbono v. Universal Underwriters Ins.
Co., 161 P.3d 406, 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007), as amended (“If an insurance
contract’s language is neither ambiguous nor difficult to comprehend, we will
enforce the intent expressed in the policy regardless of what coverage the insured
may have thought he had.”) (citation omitted).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court properly dismissed Siena’s bad faith claim and claims
under the Insurance Fair Conduct Act and Consumer Protection Act because Mt.
Hawley reasonably denied coverage. See Pleasant v. Regence Blue Shield, 325
P.3d 237, 247 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (“A reasonable basis for denial of an
insured’s claim constitutes a complete defense to any claim that the insurer acted in
bad faith or in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.”) (citation and alteration
omitted).1
AFFIRMED.
1 Because Siena demonstrated no error in the district court’s decision, its
motion for reconsideration was properly denied on the merits. See Michelman v.
Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 899 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that
“[b]ecause the district court’s summary judgment order was proper, the court did
not abuse its discretion by denying . . . [the plaintiff’s] motion for
reconsideration”).
3

-- 3 of 3 --