FlawCheck Citator
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN SETTY, No. 23-3706 D.C. No. Plaintiff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
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.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →