CINDY LEE V. GEICO, No. 13-15524 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY LEE, No. 13-15524 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00782-LEKBMK v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; DOES, One through One Hundred, inclusive, and each of them, MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. 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 * 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). 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 AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
