A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34( f) ; 10 TH C IR . R. 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i t houtor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i t h F ED . R. A PP . P. 32. 1 and 10 TH C IR . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e27,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT
N IN A JO H N S O N , o n b e h a lf o f h e rse lf and al l ot her s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . HARTF ORD UN DERWRI TE RS IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , a Co n n e c t i c u tCo rp o r a t i o n ; HARTF ORD PROPERTY A ND CA SUA LTY IN S U R A N C E C O M P A N Y , a Co n n e c t i c u tCo rp o r a t i o n ; T HE HAR T F OR D F I NANC I AL S E R V IC E S G R O U P , IN C ., a C onnect i cutcorpor at i on, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 1442 (D . C . N o . 0 4 -R B -19 6 (M JW ))

(D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e B RI S CO E , S EY M OUR , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.A lth o u g h w e a p p lyth e su b sta n tiv e law o f th e fo ru m sta te, C o lo ra d o , in th is 1 di ver s i t ycas e, fede r al l aw governs ourr evi ew of the pr opr i etyof the di s t r i ct c o u r t ’ s g r a n to f

s u mm a r yj u d g me n t , wh i c h we r e v i e w de novo u n d e rt h e s a me s ta n d a rd a s a p p lic a b le in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See Hi l lv. A l ls t at e Ins . C o. , 479 F. 3d 7 3 5 , 7 3 9 -4 0 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). “Sum m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e i f ‘ t he pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” Id
. at740 ( quot i ng F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c)) (fu rth er q u o tat ion o m itted). -2- N i na J ohns on w as i nj ur ed i n an aut om obi l e ac ci denti n 1998 and r ece i ved appr oxi m at el y$100, 000 i n per s onal i nj ur ypr ot ect i on ( PI P) benef i t s underan i ns ur ance pol i cyi s s ued t o herbyt he defendant s ( col l ect i vel y , H ar t for d) . She br oughtt hi s act i on s eeki ng r eform at i on of the pol i cyand addi t i onal benef i t s on t he gr ound t hatH ar t for d’ s offe rof addi t i onal PI P ( A PI P) cover age, w hi ch M s . J o h n s o n d e c lin e d to p u rc h a s e , d id n o t c o m p ly w ith C o lo ra d o la w . See Thomps on v. B udgetR ent-A
- C arSys
. Inc. , 940 P. 2d 987, 990 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1996) ( expl ai ni ng t hat“[w ] hen an i ns ur erfai l s t o offe rt he i ns ur ed opt i onal c o v e ra g e th a t itis s tatu to rilyre q u ire d to o ffe r, ad d iti o n a l co v e ra g e in c o n fo rm ity
w ith the re q u ir ed o ffer is i n co rpo rated into the ag ree m en t byo p era ti o n o f law ”). 1 She al s o r ai s ed a va r i etyof othercl ai m s depende nton the r eform at i on cl ai m . T he d istric t co u rt g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f H a rtfo rd , as m o d ified in its d en ial o f M s. Jo h n so n ’s m o ti o n fo r reli ef u n d er F ED . R. C IV . P. 59( e) , and M s . J o h n s o n a p p e a l e d . We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m.-3-

H ar t for d i s s ued M s . J ohns on’ s pol i cyon M ay28, 1992. A tt he t i m e, t he C o lo ra d o A u to A c c id e n t R e p a ra tio n s A c t, C O LO . R EV . S TAT . § § 1 0 -4 -7 0 1 to 1 0 -4 -7 2 6 (2 0 0 3 ) (re p e a led Ju ly1 , 2 0 0 3 ) (N o -F a u lt A c t), req u ire d in su re rs to pr ovi de ce r t ai n m i ni m um or“bas i c” PI P benefi t s , r egar dl es s of fa ul t , t o per s ons inju re d in a c c id e n ts in v o lv in g th e in s u re d v e h ic le , s ee C O LO . R EV . S TAT . § 1 0 -4 -7 0 6 (1 9 9 1 ), a n d to o ffe r fo r p u rc h a s e c e rt a in o p tio n a l A P IP b e n e fits . See i d. , § 10- 4- 710 ( 1991) . E ffe ct i ve J ul y1, 1992, an amendm entt o t he N o- Faul tA ct t ook effectt hat , i n r el evantpar t , change d t he opt i onal A PI P cover ages an i ns ur er w as r equi r ed t o offe r . A s per t i nenther e, t he amended s t atut e pr ovi ded: (2)(a) E v eryinsu rer s hal lof f erfori ncl us i on i n a compl y i ng pol i cy , i n addi t i on t o t he [ba s i c PI P] cover ages des cr i bed i n s ect i on 10- 4- 706, att he opt i on of the named i ns ur ed: ( I ) C om pens at i on of al l [m edi cal ] expens es . . . w i t hout dol l arort i m e l i m i t at i on; or (I I) C o m p e n s a tio n o f a ll [ m e d ic a l] e x p e n s e s . . . w i t houtdol l arort i m e l i m i t at i ons and paym entof benef i t s equi val entt o ei ght y - fi ve per centof l os s of gr os s i ncome perw eek f r om w or k t he i nj ur ed per s on w oul d have pe r for m ed had s uch i nj ur ed per s on notbeen i nj ur ed dur i ng t he per i od comm enci ng on t he dayaft er t h e d a t e o f

t h e a c c i d e n twi t h o u td o l l a ro rt i me l i m i t at i on s. ( I I I ) D el et ed byL aw s 1992, H . B . 92- 1175, § 2, eff. A pr i l 10, 1992. (b ) A c o m p ly in g p o licym a yp ro v id e th a t all b e n e fits se t fo rth in s ect i on 10- 4- 706( 1) ( b) t o ( 1) ( e) and i n t hi s s ect i on ar e s ubj ectt o an aggr egat e l i m i tof tw o hundr ed thous and dol l ar s pay abl e on ac count-4-

of i nj ur yt o ordeath of anyone per s on as a r es ul tof anyone ac ci dent ar i s i ng outof the us e oroper at i on of a mot orvehi cl e. C O LO . R EV . S TAT . § 10- 4- 710( 2) ( 1992) ( emphasi s added) . T he r equi r ement s of § 710( 2) appl i ed onl y“t o pol i ci es i s s ued on oraft erJ ul y1, 1992. ” Id. , § 1 0 -4-7 1 0 (4) (1 9 9 2 ). Af t e rt h e a me n d me n tt o o k e ffe c t , Ha r t fo r d s e n tM s . J o h n s o n t wo d o c u m e n ts, a n “ Im p o rta n t N o tice : P e rso n a l Inju ryP ro tec tio n (N o -F a u lt) C over age Changes ” ( I m por t antN ot i ce) and a “ PI P O pt i on/ W or k L os s R ej ect i on F o rm ” (P IP O p tio n F o rm ). H a rtfo rd m a in tain s th a t th e se d o c u m e n ts f u lfill e d its sta tu to ryo b lig a tio n to o ffe r A P IP c o v e ra g e . M s. Jo h n so n d isa g re e s. W e w ill exami ne the cont entof thes e tw o document s i n t he cont extof ea ch of M s . J ohns on’ s pr es erved ar gum ent s . I ni t i al l y , how ever , w e addr es s s ever al prel i m i narym at t ers . Fi r s t , H ar t for d cont ends t he amended A PI P r equi r ement s appl yonl yt o new p o li cies issu ed af

ter July1 , 1 9 9 2 , n o t t o it s an n u al ren ew als o f M s. Jo h n so n ’s pol i cy . M s . J ohns on cont ends H ar t for d w ai ved thi s poi ntbynotr ai s i ng i ti n t he di s t r i ctcour t . W e nee d notdeci de ei t heri s s ue bec aus e eve n as s um i ng t he am en d ed A P IP req u ir em en ts ap p li ed to the ren ew als, o u r disp o sit ion sti ll fa v o rs H ar t for d. Second, M s . J ohns on cont ends t hats peci m en pol i ci es H ar t for d us ed fr om M ay1992 unt i l M ar ch 2002 w er e notcompl i anti n cert ai n r es pect s w i t h amendedA th ird p re lim in a rym a tter n e e d n o t d e tain u s lo n g . H a rtfo rd p o in ts o u t, 2 and M s . J ohns on does notappea rt o di s put e, t hati n i t s or derdeny i ng M s. Jo h n so n ’s R u le 59 (e) m o ti o n an d m o d ify ing it s o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary j udgm entt o H ar t for d, t he di s t r i ctcour terr oneous l yappl i ed the amended ver s i on o f § 7 1 0 (2). I n so d o ing , itco n clud ed that the o ffer o f A P IP co v era g e H artfo rd m ade i n t he appl i cat i on fort he or i gi nal pol i cyi s s ued t o M s . J ohns on on M ay28, (c o n tin u e d ...) -5- § 710, and ther efor e H ar t for d coul d nothave offer ed hers t atut or i l ycompl i ant A PI P cover age. T he foc us of ourexami nat i on i n t hi s cas e, how ever , i s noton t he lang u ag e o f th e sp ec im en p o li cies, bu t on the o ffer o f A P IP co v era g e H artfo rd
m ade t o M s . J ohns on. A n i ns ur er ’ s s t atut or ydut yi s t o of f erA PI P cover age, and it c a n d is c h a rg e th a t d u ty ev e n a f te r a p o lic yis is s u e d . See Al ls t at e Ins . C o. v. P ar f r ey , 8 3 0 P .2 d 9 0 5 , 9 1 2 (C o lo . 1 9 9 2 ) (e n b a n c ) (in su re r c a n f u lfill its cont i nui ng s t atut or yobl i gat i on t o offe raddi t i onal uni ns ur ed/under i ns ur ed
m o to rist c o v e ra g e a f

ter iss u a n c e o f

p o licy ); se e a lso Hill , 479 F. 3d at742 ( appl y i ng P ar

f r ey in A P IP -o ffe r c o n tex t); P adhiar v. Stat e Farm Mut. A uto. Ins. C o. , 479 F. 3d 727, 733 ( 10t h C i r . 2007) ( s ame) . N one of the ca s es M s . J ohns on ci t es per s uades us ot herw i s e. For t hi s s ame r eas on, w e r ej ecthercont ent i on t hat b e c a u se th e Im p o rta n t N o tice a n d th e P IP O p tio n F o rm w e re n o t en d o rse m e n ts to herpol i cy , t heycoul d notcur e the al l egedl ynoncompl i antdes cr i pt i on of H ar t for d’ s A PI P cover age s etfor t h i n t he pol i ci es . Si m i l ar l y , w e nee d not exami ne w hethert he di s t r i ctcour ti m per m i s s i bl ycons i der ed M s . J ohns on’ s l ack of r el i ance on t he pol i cyl anguage i n deci di ng nott o pur chas e A PI P cover age w h e n it co n c lu d e d th a t an yd e ficie n c yin th e p o licyw a s irre lev a n t. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 1992, fai l ed t o compl yw i t h C ol or ado l aw beca us e i tbundl ed an e xt ended w or k- l os s benef

i tw i t h an es s ent i al
- s er vi ces benef i t . W e have r evi ew ed the s t atut or ys cheme, and H ar t for d’ s as s er t i on of err orappea r s corr ect . B eca us e the err or di d n ot affectt he d i stri ctcou rt ’s dis po si t i on , ho w ever, i tw as harm l ess. -6- W e now tur n t o t he pi vot al cons i der at i on, w hethert he I m por t antN ot i ce a nd the P IP O p ti o n F o rm fu lfi ll ed H artfo rd’s statutoryo b li g ati o n to o ffer A P IP c o v e ra g e to M s. Jo h n so n . W e a p p lya “ to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s” tes t to det er m i ne w hetherH ar t for d ful fi l l ed i t s dut yof not i fi cat i on and offer“i n a m annerr eas onabl ycal cul at ed t o per m i tt he pot ent i al pur chas ert o m ake a n i nfor m ed dec i s i on. ” P ar f r ey , 830 P. 2d at913, 914. R el evantfac t or s i ncl ude the cl ar i t yand the form ( or al orw r i t t en) of the expl anat i on, t he s peci fi ci t yof the A P IP o p tio n s , a n d w h e th e r p ri c in g in fo rm a tio n w a s c o n v e y e d . See i d at913
. As
w e r ece nt l ys um m ar i zed, t he N o- Faul tA ct“mer el yr equi r ed thatt he i ns ur ed be gi ve n e no ug h i nformat i on t o a dv i s e t he i ns ur e d o f the a va i l a bi l i t yof [the A PI P] cover age a nd per m i ta r eas onabl yi nfor m ed dec i s i on on w hethert o pur chas e i t . ” Hill , 4 7 9 F . 3 d at 74 2 -43 (qu o tat ion an d b rac k ets o m itted). M s. Jo h n so n ’s ge n era l con tention is th at t h e Im p o rt an t N o ti ce an d the P IP O pt i on For m bot h cont ai ned i nacc ur aci es aboutbas i c PI P and A PI P cover age that
r ai s ed a j ur yques t i on as t o w hethers he coul d m ake a r eas onabl yi nfor m ed d ec isi o n ab o u t pu rch asin g A P IP co v era g e. S p ec ifi ca ll y , sh e a rgu es, an d H artfo rd conce des , t hatt he I m por t antN ot i ce i ncorr ect l ydes cr i bed the bas i c PI P benefi t s as b e in g su bjec t to a to tal c o m b in e d lim it o f $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 ra th e r th a n th e h ig h e r lim itW e n o te M s. Jo h n so n ’s po li cyco n tai n ed statu tori lyco m p li an t bas ic P IP 3 cover age a nd H ar t for d pai d heral l t he bas i c PI P benefi t s t o w hi ch s he w as ent i t l ed. -7- p re sc rib e d b y§ 1 0 -4 -7 0 6 (1 ) (1 9 9 2 ), w h ich th e p a rties sta te w a s a p p ro x im a tely $130, 000. B utt he onl yr eas onabl e i nfer ence t o be dr aw n her e i s t hata per s on cont empl at i ng t he A PI P offerm ayhave be en m ore li k elyto p u rch ase A P IP cover age gi ven the err oneous r epr es ent at i on t hatbas i c PI P cover age pr ovi ded a l es s gener ous benef

i tt han r equi r ed bys t atut e. 3 M s . J ohns on nextcont ends t he I m por t antN ot i ce di d notm ake c l eart hat t h e r e w a s n o t i m e l i m i to n p a ym e n to f w o r k
- l o s s b e n e fi t s u n d e r“ O p t i o n 2 . ” We di s agr ee. T he fi r s tpage of t he I m por t antN ot i ce s t at ed thatt he ext ended
w or k- l os s benef

i tcover ed byO pt i on 2 “i ncl udes w or k l os s benef i t s bey ond t he 5 2 w ee k s fo ll o w ing an ac cide n t. ” A p lt . A p p . , V o l. I at 19 3 . T h e “ A d d ed P IP M e d ica l a n dWo rkL o ss B e n e fit , ” i d. at194 ( emphasi s added) , pr ovi ded by O p tio n 2 w a s f

u rth e r d e sc rib e d o n p a g e tw o o f th e Im p o rta n t N o tice a s s u bjec t to

“ [ a ] c o m b in e d to ta l lim it o f $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 , w ith n o tim e lim it . ” Id. a t 1 9 4 (e m p h a sis added) . A nd w hi l e M s . J ohns on i s corr ectt hatt he PI P O pt i on For m di d not pr ovi de a s i m i l arexpl anat i on t hatt he w or k- l os s benef i tw as notl i m i t ed i n t i m e, t he expl anat i on i n the I m por t antN ot i ce w as s uffi ci ent l ycl eari n and of i t s el f. M s . J ohns on al s o cont ends t hata por t i on of the l anguage on page tw o of the I m por t antN ot i ce quot ed above , t hatO pt i on 2 i s s ubj ectt o “[a ] combi ned t ot al l i m i tof $200, 000, ” i d. , does notm ake c l eart hatt he l i m i ti s per - per s on,A l t hough M s . J ohns on ar gues t hats ever al ot hers peci fi c as pect s of the 4 I m por t antN ot i ce a nd t he PI P O pt i on For m di d notcompl yw i t h amended § 710, sh e d id n o t prese n t th o se sp ec ifi c p o ints t o the d istri ct co u rt . T h ere fo re, th eyare w a iv e d . See Lyon s v. Jef f erson B an k & Trust , 9 9 4 F . 2 d 7 1 6 , 7 2 1 -22 (10 th C ir . 1993) ( expl ai ni ng t hatt heor i es r ai s ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour tdo notpr es er ve r evi ew of rel at ed theori es) . In anyeven t , w e fi nd t hese argum ents m eri t l ess. -8- per - acc i dent , as di r ect ed by§ 710( 2) ( b) . A s s um i ng t he s peci fi c l anguage M s . J ohns on advoca t es i s r equi r ed undert he N o- Faul tA ct , w e conc l ude thatt he Im p o rt an t N o ti ce an d the P IP O p ti o n F o rm su ffici en tl yinfo rm ed h er o f th e n ature o f th e li m it . T h e P IP O p ti o n F o rm sp ec ifi ca ll ystat es th at ea ch o f th e tw o A P IP opt i ons i s “s ubj ectt o a combi ned t ot al l i m i tof $200, 000 perpers on .” A p lt. A p p ., V ol . I at196 ( emphasi s added) . R epea t ed r efe r ence s t o “an a cci dent ” i n t he Im p o rt a n t N o tic e m a k e c le a r t h a t th e m o n e ta ry c a p a p p lie s p e r a c c id e n t. See i d. at193- 94. 4 B as ed on the t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherH ar t for d gave M s . J ohns on enough i nfor m at i on t o advi s e herof the ava i l abi l i t yof A PI P cover age a nd w hethert he in fo rm a tio n p e rm itte d h e r t o m a k e a re a s o n a b ly in fo rm e d p u rc h a s e d e c is io n . T h e r e fo r e , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED .
E n tered fo r th e C o u rt St ephani e K . Seym our C i r cui tJ udge