
    NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. Richard L. KOCH, Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
    No. 11-35976.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 10, 2013.
    
    Filed April 12, 2013.
    James E. Howard, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.
    Kenneth Robert Friedman, Friedman Rubin, Bremerton, WA, for Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant.
    Before: D.W. NELSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard L. Koch appeals the district court’s order granting Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company’s Motion to Correct Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not err in correcting its Summary Judgment Order under Rule 60(a) to clarify that both parties had to return any payments they received under disability insurance policy no. D942877. Washington law required Koch to repay any insurance benefits he received under the rescinded policy in order to return Northwestern to its pre-contract position. See Simonson v. Fendell, 101 Wash.2d 88, 675 P.2d 1218, 1222 (1984) (en banc); see also Johnson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 126 Wash.App. 510, 108 P.3d 1273, 1277 (2005) (insurer entitled to reimbursement of all claim payments made where material concealment and misrepresentation voided policy). Clarifying that Koch was required to return the benefits he received was a proper correction to a judgment under Rule 60(a). See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir.2012) (“Rule 60(a) allows a court to clarify a judgment in order to correct a failure to memorialize part of its decision, to reflect the necessary implications of the original order, to ensure that the court’s purpose is fully implemented, or to permit enforcement.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the record “contains nothing suggesting that the corrected judgment[ ] [is] in any way inconsistent with the original intent of the court,” id. at 1080, the court’s Rule 60(a) order served an appropriate clarifying purpose, id. at 1081.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     