KIM PECK V. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 17-35781 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 21 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KIM PECK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35781 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00500-BLW v. MEMORANDUM* CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Kim Peck appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action arising out of the denial of insurance claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Glacier Fish Co. v. Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court properly granted summary judgment on Peck’s breach of contract claim because Peck failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether appellee failed to pay Peck any amount owed under Peck’s insurance policy. See Miller v. Belknap, 266 P.2d 662, 665 (Idaho 1954) (explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of proving her right to recover by a preponderance of the evidence). We reject as without merit Peck’s contention that the district court was biased. Peck’s motion to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary. Appellee’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 34) is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 17-35781
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.
