Mike Goodman v. New Hampshire Insurance Compan

MEMORANDUM

Mike Goodman appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to New Hampshire Insurance Company in his action for breach of contract, bad faith and violation of the consumer protection laws of the State of Washington. We affirm.

Goodman’s claims are all based upon state law; we, therefore, apply Washington law. ' See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 , 58 S.Ct. 817, 822 , 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938); Vestar Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir .2001).

(1) Goodman asserts that the district court erred when it ruled against his claim that the damage caused by a leak in a fuel tank was covered by the insurance policy issued by New Hampshire. We disagree. The policy covers damage caused by hidden defects, but excludes all coverage where damage or loss arises from corrosion. Giving the policy a “fair, reasonable, and sensible construction,” we agree with the district court that the policy unambiguously excluded coverage because the tank leak arose out of corrosion. To the extent that Goodman asserts that the efficient proximate cause of the problem was a leak from around the vessel’s hatches, there was no evidence that the hatch defect…