Carlson
Carlson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Carlson appeals from the district court’s summary judgment for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .
We review summary judgment de novo. Estate of Shockley v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 130 F.3d 403 , 405 (9th Cir.1997). We also apply de novo review both to the district court’s holding on the statute of limitations, Naas v. Stolman, 130 F.3d 892, 893 (9th Cir.1997), and to its interpretation of state law. Trujillo v. County of Santa Clara, 775 F.2d 1359, 1367 (9th Cir.1985). We affirm.
The Montana code section at issue provides, “The period prescribed for commencement of an action under this section is: ... (b) for a third-party claimant, within 1 year from the date of the settlement of or the entry of judgment on the underlying claim.” Mont.Code Ann. 33-18-242(7)(b). On November 17, 1997, Carlson entered into an oral accord to settle her lawsuit. On December 10, 1997, Carlson executed a final release of State Farm’s insured, and on December 12, 1997, State Farm tendered payment to Carlson. On *955 January 4, 1998, upon…