State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation v. Esteban Asuncion, and Rosario Asuncion

42 F.3d 1402 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Esteban ASUNCION, and Rosario Asuncion, Defendants-Appellants. No. 93-17118. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 3, 1994. Decided Nov. 17, 1994. Before: BROWNING, TROTT, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 * The consent-to-settle clause is valid. The Hawaii Supreme Court has upheld an analogous consent-to-sue clause. See Moorcroft v. First Insurance Co. of Hawaii, Ltd., 720 P.2d 178, 180 (Haw.1986) (recognizing the validity of a "consent-to-sue" clause limiting an insured's right to recover under its uninsured motorist coverage). Further, the fact that Hawaii makes underinsured motorist coverage optional weighs in favor of the clause's validity. See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co. v. Kolb, 884 F.2d 486, 489 (9th Cir.1989). II 3 The Asuncions' settlement with and…