NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARY-ANN BERNADETTE KERRIGAN, No. 18-35019
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01637-RSM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
foreign company,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Mary-Ann Bernadette Kerrigan appeals pro se from the district court’s
summary judgment in her diversity action alleging state law claims arising from a
homeowners insurance policy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
*
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).
We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Kerrigan’s extra-
contractual claims because Kerrigan failed to raise a genuine dispute of material
fact as to whether defendant’s investigation of her insurance claim and the denial
of benefits was reasonable. See Wash. Rev. Code § 48.30.015(1) (requirements for
an Insurance Fair Conduct Act claim); Truck Ins. Exch. v. Vanport Homes, Inc., 58
P.3d 276, 284 (Wash. 2002) (en banc) (discussing insurance claims under the
Washington Consumer Protection Act); First State Ins. Co. v. Kemper Nat’l Ins.
Co., 971 P.2d 953, 959 (Wash Ct. App. 1999) (recognizing ordinary care standard
for a negligent claim handling); Indus. Indem. Co. of the Nw. v. Kallevig, 792 P.2d
520, 526 (Wash. 1990) (en banc) (requirements for bad faith and breach of
fiduciary duty claims brought by an insured); Dicomes v. State, 782 P.2d 1002,
1012 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) (elements of a tort of outrage claim); see also Mut. of
Enumclaw Ins. Co. v. Dan Paulson Constr., Inc., 169 P.3d 1, 8 (Wash. 2007)
(“[T]o establish bad faith, an insured is required to show the breach was
unreasonable, frivolous, or unfounded.” (citation omitted)).
In her opening brief, Kerrigan fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal
of her claims premised on the insurance contract and specifically its ruling
2 18-35019
regarding the insurance policy’s one-year contractual limitations provision, and she
has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045,
1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening
brief are deemed waived.”); Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994)
(“We will not manufacture arguments for an appellant . . . .”).
Kerrigan’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 2, 10) are
denied because Kerrigan has not demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances.” See
Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Absent
extraordinary circumstances, we generally do not permit parties to supplement the
record on appeal.”).
The parties’ motions to strike various filings (Docket Entry Nos. 6, 7, 26)
are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-35019