Robert Mears v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois

MEMORANDUM

This court reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994), and affirms.

1. There are no genuine issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment as to whether Mears consented, whether a mutual mistake of fact existed, or whether the release was vague and ambiguous. Whether the parties mutually consented to the contract is determined by “inquiring whether a reasonable person, based upon the objective manifestation of assent, and all the surrounding circumstances, would conclude that the parties intended to be bound by the contract.” Chipman v. Nw. Healthcare Corp., Applied Health Servs., Inc., 373 Mont. 360 , 317 P.3d 182, 185 (2014). Mears’s objective manifestations are not in dispute and Mears’s other subjective complaints do not create a dispute of fact relevant to Mears’s objective manifestations. Further, we will not address any argument that there was a mutual mistake of fact because Mears waived his right to appeal that issue. Finally, Mears presents no evidence that creates an ambiguity in the plain language of the telephone release.

2. The district court did not err in denying Mears…