
    Cindy LEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, a Maryland corporation; Does, One through One Hundred, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15524.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 16, 2015.
    
    Filed Oct. 20, 2015.
    John Choi, Trial, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    James Patrick Gallagher, Esquire, Henderson Gallagher & Kane, Erin Iliana MacDonald, Gallager Kane Amai, Honolulu, HI, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cindy Lee challenges a district court order denying her underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Specifically, Ms. Lee claims that GEICO was statutorily required to reoffer her UIM benefits after her daughter and two vehicles were added to her auto insurance policy, and that because GEICO did not make this offer, she is entitled to receive those benefits as a matter of law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo the district court’s decision to grant GEICO summary judgment. Szajer v. City of Los Angeles, 632 F.3d 607, 610 (9th Cir.2011).

1. The district court concluded that, under Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaneshiro, 93 Hawai'i 210, 998 P.2d 490 (2000), no material changes were made to Ms. Lee’s insurance policy. This was not error, as the KanesMro court indicated that there would be no material change where an individual is added, vehicles are added, and premiums increase, but the named insured remains the same on the policy. See id. at 500. Thus, the district court correctly concluded that because Ms. Lee and her husband remained as named insureds on the policy, the addition of vehicles and the addition of a driver were not material changes.

2. Ms. Lee also argues that the district court erred when it placed the burden of proof on her as the insured. But the district court simply recited a correct statement of Hawaiian law: that insureds have the initial burden of proving coverage under a policy. See Sentinel Ins. Co. v. First Ins. Co. of Haw., 76 Hawai'i 277, 875 P.2d 894, 909 n. 13 (1994). To do so was not error.

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