Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n, Non-Profit Corp. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Decision Date19 August 2014
Docket NumberNo. 12–36021.,12–36021.
Citation763 F.3d 1232
PartiesQUEEN ANNE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Defendant–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Gregory Louis Harper, Todd Christopher Hayes, Harper Hayes PLLC, Seattle, WA, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Jerret E. Sale, Bullivant Houser Bailey PC, Joseph D. Hampton, Esquire, Daniel L. Syhre, Esquire, Betts Patterson & Mines, PS, Pamela Ann Okano, Reed McClure, Seattle, WA, for DefendantAppellee.

D.C. No. 2:11–cv–01579–TSZ, Western District of Washington, Seattle.

Before: ARTHUR L. ALARCÓN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and MARY H. MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

ORDER CERTIFYING A QUESTION TO THE WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT

ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge.

ORDER

This is an insurance coverage case filed in federal court pursuant to our diversity jurisdiction. The policy at issue provides coverage in certain circumstances for the “collapse” of a building, but it does not define “collapse.” The most recent relevant Washington Supreme Court case, Sprague v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 174 Wash.2d 524, 276 P.3d 1270 (2012), suggests that what constitutes “collapse” when the term is otherwise undefined in the insurance policy at issue is an open question under Washington law. The parties filed cross motions to certify that question to the Washington Supreme Court to resolve the issue. We granted the motions. We respectfully request that the Washington Supreme Court accept and decide the certified question below.

I

The Queen Anne Park is a two-building condominium in Seattle, Washington. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. (State Farm) insured the property under a “Condominium/Association Policy (the “Policy”). The Policy was in effect from October 18, 1992 to October 18, 1998. In general, the Policy covered “accidental direct physical loss” to covered property, unless the loss was excluded or limited. An “extension of coverage” covered “any accidental direct physical loss to covered property involving collapse of a building or any part of a building caused only by one or more of the following: ... (2) hidden decay....” The coverage extension further provided, “Collapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.” The Policy did not otherwise define the term “collapse.”

On August 20, 2010, the Queen Anne Park Homeowners Association (the HOA) filed a claim with State Farm. The HOA claimed that the Policy covered the “collapse” of a building, which the HOA interpreted to mean “a substantial impairment of the structural integrity of any portion or component of the building.” The HOA claimed that an inspection of the Queen Anne Park had “revealed several areas of hidden decay” and that the HOA “believe[d] that these and other areas suffered a substantial impairment of structural integrity during [State Farm's] policy periods.”

On August 23, 2011, after conducting its own inspections, State Farm denied the claim. State Farm concluded that [a] loss involving collapse” had “not commence[d] in any policy term” and that various exclusions to coverage applied.

In September 2011, in the federal District Court for the Western District of Washington, the HOA filed suit against State Farm, seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract. The HOA moved for summary judgment, arguing that, under Washington law, the term “collapse,” when otherwise undefined in the insurance policy at issue, means “substantial impairment of structural integrity.” The district court denied the motion. It explained its rationale as follows:

Given the reasoning of the majority and concurrence in Sprague, and the decision in Ocean Winds [ Council of Co–Owners, Inc. v. Auto–Owner Insurance Co., 350 S.C. 268, 565 S.E.2d 306 (2002) ], the Court concludes that, even if Washington were to adopt a relaxed standard [of collapse] that is somewhere short of “rubble on the ground,” it would require an insured seeking coverage under a collapse provision to show, in addition to a substantial impairment of structural integrity, an imminent threat of collapse.

The court concluded that the HOA could not meet this standard.

II

As noted earlier, the most recent relevant Washington Supreme Court case concerning what constitutes “collapse” under Washington law is Sprague. The issue in Sprague was whether a Safeco homeowners policy covered losses to a residential deck system stemming from construction and rot issues. The policy “provided coverage for all losses that were not excluded,” and “did not define the term ‘collapse’ nor explicitly address ‘collapse’ as a covered or excluded loss.” Sprague, 276 P.3d at 1271.

The Washington Supreme Court concluded that the policy excluded the losses. Id. at 1273. The five-justice majority expressly declined to address what constitutes “collapse” under Washington law. Id. at 1272 (We need not decide whether the deck had collapsed due to the loss of structural integrity even though it had not fallen to the ground.”). Two justices filed a concurrence, stating “it is apparent that [the] deck did not collapse” because the “record here shows that the Spragues' deck did not break down. Neither did it fall apart or crumble.” Id. at 1276. The concurring justices defined “collapse” as ‘to break down completely: fall apart in confused disorganization: crumble into insignificance or nothingness ... fall into a jumbled or flattened mass.’ Id. (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 443 (2002)). The four dissenting justices asserted that the court should have addressed what constitutes “collapse.” Id. at 1273–76. They argued, “Absent a policy definition, courts have generally rejected the fall-down notion of collapse in favor of the more liberal standard, ‘substantial impairment of structural integrity.’ Id. at 1274 (second internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing cases).

III

Washington's Federal Court Local Law Certificate Procedure Act, Wash. Rev.Code §§ 2.60.010–900, authorizes the Washington Supreme Court to accept certified questions from federal courts. Wash. Rev.Code § 2.60.020. “Use of certification rests in the sound discretion of this court.” Churchill v. F/V Fjord (In re McLinn), 744 F.2d 677, 681 (9th Cir.1984) (citing Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974)); see also Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., 676 F.3d 779, 781 n. 1 (9th Cir.2012) ([W]e may properly certify a question sua sponte. (citing Wash. Rev.Code § 2.60.030(1); Keystone Land & Dev....

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • United States v. Gadson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 Agosto 2014
    ... ... Mukhtar v. Cal. State Univ., Hayward, 299 F.3d 1053, 1063 (9th ... ...
  • Certification from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 2015
    ...to state that “collapse does not include settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion?”Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 763 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir.2014). Rather than adopt a fixed definition of “collapse” for all insurance contracts, we apply Washingt......
  • In re Moreno
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Washington
    • 11 Mayo 2021
    ...a question of state law to a state supreme court is within the discretion of federal courts. Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 763 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir. 2014), certifying questions to 183 Wash. 2d 485, 352 P.3d 790 (2015). RCW § 2.60.020 recognizes the pro......
  • Centurion Props. III, LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 16 Julio 2015
    ...Court's consideration of this issue, and we recognize that it may reformulate the question.” Queen Anne Park Homeowners Ass'n v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 763 F.3d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir.2014).The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to transmit to the Washington Supreme Court, under official se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT