Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10281540
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Setty v. United Financial Casualty Company, Inc.
No. 10281540 · Decided November 21, 2024
No. 10281540·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
November 21, 2024
Citation
No. 10281540
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN SETTY, No. 23-3706
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-02464-LB
v. MEMORANDUM*
UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2024**
San Jose, California
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Brian Setty brought this action against Defendant United Financial
Casualty Company, seeking underinsured motorist benefits under an automobile
insurance policy. The district court dismissed the action pursuant to Federal Rule
*
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).
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the ground that Plaintiff was not insured on the
relevant date. On de novo review, In re Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
97 F.4th 634, 641 (9th Cir. 2024), we affirm.
Plaintiff bought a series of six-month automobile insurance policies from
Defendant. He suffered severe injuries in a car crash on September 30, 2020,
resulting in expenses of nearly $1 million. The other driver, who was at fault,
was underinsured. Plaintiff filed a claim with Defendant. After Defendant
denied the claim, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.
The relevant policy covered the period from March 27 to September 27,
2020. That contract contained an “Automatic Termination” provision, which
provided that coverage “will terminate automatically if you do not accept our
renewal offer” and further stated that, if the insurer offered to renew or
continue the policy, the policy holder’s “[f]ailure to pay the required renewal or
continuation premium when due will mean that [the insured has] not accepted
our offer.”
On August 25, 2020, Defendant sent Plaintiff two documents. One of them
clearly advised Plaintiff that his “current policy will expire on 09/27/2020” and
specified that his first premium payment was due on September 27, 2020. The
other document described the proposed coverage and stated: “The coverages,
limits and policy period [beginning on September 27] shown apply only if you
2 23-3706
pay for this policy to renew.” Defendant attached a payment schedule showing
the first payment was due on September 27, 2020.
Plaintiff made no payment by the September 27 due date. Instead, he sent a
payment on October 8, 2020, which Defendant applied to a new six-month term
commencing on October 9. Accordingly, he was not insured on September 30.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant failed to follow section 663(a)(1) of the
California Insurance Code, which governs this California insurance policy and
which we therefore apply in this diversity action. That statute requires an insurer
to deliver a notice to the insured at least 20 days before the end of the policy’s
term informing the insured that renewal is contingent upon payment of the
premium. August 25 is more than 20 days before the termination date of
September 27, so Defendant’s mailing complied with this requirement. The fact
that Defendant also sent a reminder to Plaintiff on September 11, because it had
not heard from him, does not change the analysis.
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
considering the documents referred to in the complaint and tendered by
Defendant. See Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152, 1159–60 (9th
Cir. 2012) (stating standard of review for a court’s decision to incorporate by
reference documents outside the pleadings); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068,
1076 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that courts may consider documents whose contents
3 23-3706
are relied on, but not included, by the complaint, including where a “plaintiff’s
claim depends on the contents of a document”).
AFFIRMED.
4 23-3706
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
02MEMORANDUM* UNITED FINANCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY, INC., Defendant - Appellee.
03Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted November 18, 2024** San Jose, California Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
04Plaintiff Brian Setty brought this action against Defendant United Financial Casualty Company, seeking underinsured motorist benefits under an automobile insurance policy.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Setty v. United Financial Casualty Company, Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on November 21, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10281540 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.