
    Linda Sheehan ANDERSON, parent and natural guardian of M.A., a minor, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurer; State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 07-35483.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 24, 2008.
    Filed Nov. 3, 2008.
    
      Hans Eric Johnsen, Esquire, Law Offices of Hans E. Johnsen, Bellevue, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Joseph D. Hampton, Esquire, Daniel L. Syhre, Esquire, Betts Patterson & Mines, PS, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: RYMER and FISHER, Circuit Judges, and HURLEY, Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Denis R. Hurley, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Linda Anderson appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of State Farm Insurance Co. We affirm.

The “regular use” exclusions at issue apply to passengers. See, e.g., Sears v. Grange Ins. Ass’n, 111 Wash.2d 636, 762 P.2d 1141, 1142-43 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Butzberger v. Foster, 151 Wash.2d 396, 89 P.3d 689 (2004). We think the state supreme court would not require control of the vehicle, as Anderson contends; rather, it would apply the Butzberger factors. 89 P.3d at 697. Under them, MA was “using” her mother’s car. This being so, there is no dispute that MA’s use was regular.

The clauses themselves are clear and unambiguous. Hall v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 133 Wash.App. 394, 135 P.3d 941, 944 (2006) (citing cases). While the facts here are particularly unfortunate, applying the exclusions does not offend public policy. Both exclusions are consistent with Washington statutory law, Wash. Rev.Code § 48.22.030(2), as well as the purpose of “regular use” exclusions. Hall, 135 P.3d at 944 (describing the purpose as “to provide coverage for isolated use of a vehicle without requiring the insured to pay an additional premium to insure that vehicle”); see Barth v. Allstate Ins. Co., 95 Wash.App. 552, 977 P.2d 6,11 (1999).

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