United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING LEAVE TO AMEND
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Philadelphia
Indemnity Insurance Company
(“Philadelphia”)'s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Dkt. #14, Philadelphia's Motion to Supplement
the Factual Record, Dkt. #20, and Plaintiff Kimberly
Gallahan's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint,
Dkt. #26. Philadelphia argues that Ms. Gallahan's suit is
barred by the contractual limitations period of the insurance
policy. For the reasons set forth below, the Court agrees,
and GRANTS Philadelphia's Motions. Furthermore, the Court
DENIES Ms. Gallahan's Motion to Amend given the
procedural posture of this case.
February 5, 2012, an auto accident occurred between Ms.
Gallahan and the at-fault driver, Dennis Knox. See
Dkts. #16-2; #16-4 at 3. The vehicle Ms. Gallahan was driving
was owned by her employer and insured under
Philadelphia's Commercial Lines, Policy No. PHPK766339.
Policy provides Underinsured Motorist (“UIM”)
Coverage in an endorsement. Id. at 16. This
endorsement includes the following provisions:
a. No one may bring a legal action against us under this
Coverage Form until there has been full compliance with all
the terms of this Coverage Form.
b. any legal action against us under this Coverage Form must
be brought within one year after the date on which the cause
of action accrues.
Id. at 18.
23, 2012, plaintiff's then-counsel wrote Philadelphia and
inquired about UIM coverage. Dkt. #16-2. Philadelphia
responded three days later and provided Ms. Gallahan's
attorney with the requested information. Dkt. #16-3.
27, 2014, Ms. Gallahan, through a new attorney, informed
Philadelphia that she had settled her claim against Mr. Knox
on July 8, 2013. Dkt. #16-4. On September 29, 2014, Ms.
Gallahan demanded Philadelphia pay her the full UIM policy
limits. Dkt #16-5. Philadelphia investigated Ms.
Gallahan's claim, and on November 10, 2015, Philadelphia
and Ms. Gallahan participated in an unsuccessful mediation.
Dkt. #15 at ¶ 4.
months later, on January 3, 2017, Ms. Gallahan filed this
suit against Philadelphia. Dkt. #1-1. Philadelphia removed to
this Court on January 30, 2017. Dkt. #1.
Motion to Supplement
Court will first address Philadelphia's Motion to
Supplement the Factual Record. Dkt. #20. Philadelphia wishes
to add to the record an email from Ms. Gallahan's counsel
dated December 11, 2015, one month after the unsuccessful
mediation, sent to Philadelphia and stating that she was
“about to file with the courts.” Dkt. #21-1 at 2.
Philadelphia argues that this evidence is relevant and
directly contradicts Ms. Gallahan's claim that neither
she nor her counsel were on notice that plaintiff's UIM
claim had accrued after the mediation. Dkt. #20 at 2.
Philadelphia argues that the Court has ...