UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ELET VALENTINE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY; UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. No. 22-1323 (D.C. No. 1:20-CV -01638-CMA-SKC) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before HOLMES , Chief Judge, HARTZ , and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Following a car accident in 2017, Elet Valentine sued Jame s River Insurance Company, Uber Technologies, Inc., and Rasier, LLC, for breach of contract and related claims. The district court grante d summary judgment to James River, Uber, and Rasier. Ms. Valentine now appeals. Exercising jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 13, 2023 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 12 I. BACKGROUND Ms. Valentine worked as an Uber driver in Colorado. On June 7, 2017, while en route to pick up an Uber passenger, Ms . Valentine was rear-e nded by an uninsured driver. Following the accident, she filed an uninsured-motorist claim with Uber’s auto-liability insurer, James River Insurance Company. James River offered Ms. Valentine $33 5,000 on her claim—an initial $85,000 payment, followed by an offer to pay an a dditional $250,000. James River also sent Ms. Valentine multiple letters informing her that it woul d consider paying more if she participated in an independent medi cal examination (“IME” ) and reminding her that the insurance policy requi red that she cooperate with its investigation into her injuries, including by particip ating in an IME. Ms. Vale ntine rejected James River’s offer and declined to par ticipate in an IME. Thereafter, Ms. Valentine sued James River, alle ging breach of contract, common-law bad faith, and ba d faith under Colorado law. She also sued Uber and Rasier (the subsidiary thr ough which Uber operates its ri desharing services), alleging breach of contract and “Vicarious Liability: Non-Delegable Doctrine.” R. vol. I at 521. James River moved for summary judgment and, in a separate motion, Uber and Rasier did the same. The district court referred both summary judgment motions to a magistrate judge, who recommended that the court grant them. Ms. Valentine timely objected. The district court overruled Ms. Valentine’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s recomme ndations, granted the motions, and entered judgment against Ms. Valentine and in favor of the defendants. Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 23 II. DISCUSSION On appeal, Ms. Valentine challenges the district c ourt’s disposition of her claims against James River, Uber, and Rasier. Ms. Valen tine represents herself, so we construe her fi lings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Where, as here, federal ju risdiction is based on dive rsity of citizenship, the substantive law of the forum state applies. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Dish Network, LLC , 17 F.4th 22, 29 (10th Cir. 2021). We review de novo the district court’s cons truction of Colorado law. See Mincin v. Vail Holdings,
Inc. , 308 F.3d 1105, 1108–09 (10th Cir. 2002). We likewise “review a gr ant of summary judgment de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all fact ual disputes in favor of the non-moving party.” Birch v. Polaris Indus., Inc. , 812 F.3d 1238, 1251 (10t h Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Summary judgme nt is appropriate “i f the movant shows that there is no genuine disput e as to any material fact a nd the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A dispute is genuine if th ere is sufficient evidence so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.” Throupe v. Univ. of Denver , 988 F.3d 1243, 1250 (10th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A fact is material if, under the governing law, it could have an effect on the outcome of the lawsuit.”
Jones v. Norton , 809 F.3d 564, 57 3 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). The movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law “i f the plaintiff fails Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 34 to provide sufficient evidence supporting a necessary element of his claim.” Throupe , 988 F.3d at 1250. A. Claims Against James River Ms. Valentine contends the district court erred in granting James River’s summary judgment motion. We disa gree and affirm the district court. “Under Colorado law, insurance policies ar e contracts,” and we construe them using the “principles of c ontract interpretation.” Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh , 17 F.4th at 29 (internal quotation marks omitted). To recover on her breach-of-contract claim, Ms . Valentine needed to prov e (1) the existence of a contract, (2) her own performance, (3) James River’s failure to perform, and (4) resulting damages. W. Distrib. Co. v. Diodosio , 841 P.2d 1053, 1058 (Colo. 1992). “A condition precedent is an act or event, other than a lapse of time, that must exist or occur before a duty to perfo rm something promised arises.” Soicher v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 351 P.3d 559, 564 (Colo. App. 2015) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted). Unde r Colorado law, “performance of a duty subject to a condition cannot become due unless the condition occurs or its nonoccurrence is excused.” Jensen v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. , 683 P.2d 1212, 1214 (Colo. App. 1984). The insurance policy at issue here pr ovides: “We have no duty to provide coverage under this policy unless there ha s been full complian ce with the following duties: . . . you and an y other involved ‘insured’ must . . . [s]ubmit to examination, at our expense, by physicians of our choice, as often as we reasonably require.” Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 45 R. vol. II at 430. It further provides that a claimant may not bring a legal action against James River under the policy until “[t]here has been full complia nce with all the terms of this [policy].” Id. The district court determined that Ms. Valentine failed to perform the provision of the policy that required her to submit to an IME upon request and that this requirement was a condition precedent to James River’s obligation to provide benefits under the policy. The court c oncluded that Ms. Valentine’s refusal to participate in an IME voided James River’ s obligation to perform and therefore found there was no genuine dispute of material fact on her breach -of-contract claim against James River. Based on the sa me reasoning, the district c ourt determined that James River was also entitled to judgment on Ms. Valen tine’s bad-faith claims. Ms. Valentine asserts many c ontentions of error, none of which are persuasive. First, she argues the district court applie d the wrong legal standard and treated James River’s motion for summary judgment as a mo tion to dismiss. However, the district court’s order set forth and pr operly applied the legal standa rd for summary judgment. Second, Ms. Valentine contends that she complied with James River’s request that she submit to an IME becau se James River’s medical e xpert, Dr. Jeffery Sabin, reviewed her medical records and prepared a report. But as the district court correctly noted, the record s hows that “Dr. Sabin merely conducted a records review; he did not conduct a physical examination.” R. vol. III at 332. Third, Ms. Valentine makes arguments that she fail ed to raise in her objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation to the district court. We deem these arguments waived and decline Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 56 to address them. See Soliz v. Chater , 82 F.3d 373, 375–76 ( 10th Cir. 1996) (holding that specific appellate arguments not rais ed in objections to a magistrate judge’s order are waived). After reviewing Ms. Valentine’s claims against James River de novo, we conclude that there is no genu ine dispute as to any materi al fact, and James River is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 The plain and unambiguous language of the policy required that Ms. Valentine subm it to an IME upon request. She never submitted to an IME, and it is undisputed that James River requested an IME multiple times. The IME clause in th e policy was a condition precedent to Ms. Valentine’s recovery under the policy. See Soicher , 351 P.3d at 564; Jensen , 683 P.2d at 1214. And no rati onal trier of fact could c onclude that Ms. Valentine satisfied the condition precedent to coverage. See Throupe , 988 F.3d at 1250. Thus, we affirm summary judgment as to Ms. Va lentine’s claims against James River. B. Claims Against Uber and Rasier Ms. Valentine also contends the dist rict court erred in granting summary judgment to Uber and Rasier on her breach -of-contract and nondelegable-doctrine

1 Because we affirm the district court’ s grant of summary judgment to James River, we decline to address Ms. Valentin e’s arguments challengi ng its denial of her own motion for partial summary judgment. In addition, she raises various discovery issues that we do not addre ss here because they are imma terial to the disposition of the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 67 claims. 2 We are unpersuaded by her arguments and affirm the district court. As relevant here, the dist rict court determined th at: (1) Ms. Valentine’s breach-of-contract claim agai nst Uber did not survive summary judgment because she failed to show that she had a contract with Uber; (2) Ms. Valentine’s breach-ofcontract claim against Rasier did not surviv e summary judgment because she failed to identify which contractual provisi on Rasier allegedly breached; and (3) Ms. Valentine’s nondelega ble-doctrine claim against bot h Uber and Rasier did not survive summary judgment because she failed to identify any evidence suggesting Uber or Rasier impermissibly delega ted a nondelegable duty owed to her. On appeal, Ms. Valentine first argues th e district court erred by applying the motion to dismiss standard instead of th e summary judgment standard to Uber and Rasier’s summary judgment motion. As st ated above, the record shows the district court’s order provided the le gal standard for summary j udgment and properly applied it. Next, Ms. Valentine asserts that her breach-of-contract claims are based on the insurance policy and that Uber and Rasier should be held liable for James River’s alleged breach of the insurance policy. However, she does not cite any legal authority to support this argument, so we decline to consider it. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (an appellant’s arguments must contain “appellant’s contentions and the

2 Ms. Valentine does not oppose the di strict court’s disposition of her vicarious-liability claim. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 26 (sta ting that appellant did not present a claim for vicarious liability). Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 78 reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”); Bronson v. Swensen , 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[W]e routinely have declined to c onsider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appella nt’s opening brief.”). Finally, Ms. Valentine contends that Uber and Rasier improperly delegated to James River their “final-policy making authority regarding the processing, evaluating, and adjusting” of her uninsured mo torist claim. Aplt. Opening Br. at 28. We also decline to consider this argument because Ms. Va lentine provides no factual support or legal authority indicating that Uber or Ra sier delegated a nondelegable duty owed to her. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Bronson , 500 F.3d at 1104. In sum, after reviewing de novo Ms. Valentine’s claims against Uber and Rasier, we uphold the district court’s conclusion that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and Uber a nd Rasier are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
III. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s judgmen t. We deny Ms. Valentine’s motion to supplement the record on appeal.

Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 22-1323 Document: 010110967869 Date Filed: 12/13/2023 Page: 8