MEMORANDUM **

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the district court granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs state law claims for breach of contract and unfair business practices. Plaintiff argues that assignments of uninsured motorist and medical payment insurance benefits are valid despite the insurer’s failure to consent. Under California law, anti-assignment clauses prohibiting assignment without the insurer’s consent are generally valid and enforceable. Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co., 29 Cal.4th 934, 943, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 828, 62 P.3d 69 (2003). In the context of insurance policies; they are enforceable unless “when at the time of the assignment the benefit has been reduced to a claim for money due or to become due.” Id. at 945, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 828, 62 P.3d 69. The district court concluded that under Henkel, the anti-assignment clause is valid because the benefits at issue had not been reduced to a sum due or to become due.

We agree with the district court. Not only did the assignment lack the insurer’s consent, the benefits at issue had not been reduced to a sum due or to become due. Id. at 943-45, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 828, 62 P.3d 69. We note also that the assignments were partial (not all of the benefits were assigned), and their partial nature potentially increases the burden on the insurer beyond that which it originally contracted for. Thus, the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs claims.

AFFIRMED.