PECK v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY (2018)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Kim PECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-35781

Decided: June 21, 2018

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Kim Peck, Pro Se David W. Knotts, Esquire, Attorney, Carey Perkins LLP, Boise, ID, Lloyd Bernstein, Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR, Daniel G. Litchfield, Litchfield Cavo, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee

MEMORANDUM **

Kim Peck appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her diversity action arising out of the denial of insurance claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Glacier Fish Co. v. Pritzker, 832 F.3d 1113, 1120 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Peck’s breach of contract claim because Peck failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether appellee failed to pay Peck any amount owed under Peck’s insurance policy. See Miller v. Belknap, 75 Idaho 46, 266 P.2d 662, 665 (1954) (explaining that plaintiff bears the burden of proving her right to recover by a preponderance of the evidence).

We reject as without merit Peck’s contention that the district court was biased.

Peck’s motion to transmit exhibits (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary.

Appellee’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 34) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law