FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, No. 12-17377
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03396-GEB-
JFM
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL MEMORANDUM*
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, presiding
Argued and Submitted January 15, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges, and ADELMAN, District
Judge.**
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court granting defendant’s
motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s state law claims for breach of contract
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.
and unfair business practices. Plaintiff argues that assignments of uninsured motorist
and medical payment insurance benefits are valid despite the insurer’s failure to
consent. Under California law, anti-assignment clauses prohibiting assignment
without the insurer’s consent are generally valid and enforceable. Henkel Corp. v.
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934, 943 (2003). In the context of
insurance policies, they are enforceable unless “when at the time of the assignment the
benefit has been reduced to a claim for money due or to become due.” Id. at 945. The
district court concluded that under Henkel, the anti-assignment clause is valid because
the benefits at issue had not been reduced to a sum due or to become due.
We agree with the district court. Not only did the assignment lack the insurer’s
consent, the benefits at issue had not been reduced to a sum due or to become due. Id.
at 943–45. We note also that the assignments were partial (not all of the benefits were
assigned), and their partial nature potentially increases the burden on the insurer
beyond that which it originally contracted for. Thus, the district court properly
dismissed plaintiff’s claims.
AFFIRMED.
2