## F I LED U n ite dS ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls

T e n th C irc u it 

### March6,200 7 E li s abet h A .Shu m aker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
SC O T T H I L L , as C ons ervat orof the E sta te o f

K a telyn H ill , P lain tiff - A p p e llan t , v. N o. 06- 1134 ALL S TAT E I NSURANCE CO M P ANY , D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR T HE DI S T RI CT OF CO L OR AD O ( D . C . N O . 04 - C V - 86 5- R EB - C BS) R obertB . C ar ey , H agens B erm an Sobol Shapi r o, L L P, Phoeni x, A r i zona, for A p p e llan t. T ere n ce M . R idley(Joh n M . V au g h t and L aM ar F . Jo st w ith h im o n the b ri ef), W heel erT r i gg K ennedy , L L P, D enver , C ol or ado, forA ppel l ee. B efo re HENR Y , ANDE RS ON , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. AN DE RS ON , C i r cui tJ udge.Si m ul t aneous l yw i th t hi s opi ni on, w e ar e fi l i ng anothercas e i nvol vi ng 1 s im ila r, b u t n o t id e n tic a l, is s u e s . S e e P a d h ia r v . S ta te F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., N o . 0 6 -11 2 1 , ___ W L ____ (M arc h 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). T he N o- Faul tA ctw as r epea l ed i n 2003. 2

- 2- P lain tiff a n d a p p e llan t S c o tt H ill , as c o n se rv a to r fo r th e e sta te o f h is daught er , K at el yn H i l l , w ho w as i nj ur ed i n an aut om obi l e ac ci dent , appea l s the fol l ow i ng or der s of the di s tr i ctcour t : one gr ant i ng defe ndantA l l s t at e I ns ur ance C om pany ’ s m ot i on forpart i al s um m aryj udgm entdat ed Sept ember14, 2005, anothergr ant i ng A l l s t at e’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdat ed J anuary24, 2006, a n d th e fin a l ju d g m e n t d ism iss in g th e c a se . T h e o rd e rs d e n ied H ill ’s r e q u e st to refo rm an au tom o b il e ins u ran ce co n tr ac t t o p rov ide a d d it ion al pe rson al i njury pr ot ect i on benef

i t s forK at el yn, deni ed H i l l ’ s r eques tforw age- l os s benef i t s , and d i s mi s s e d t h e c a s e wi th p r ej u d i c e . W e a ffi r m. 1

BA CKGROUND T he C ol or ado l egi s l atur e ena ct ed the C ol or ado A ut o A cci dentR epar at i ons A c t (“ C A A R A ” o r “ N o -F a u lt A c t”) in 1 9 7 3 . A m o n g o th e r th in g s, th e N o -F a u lt A ct “req u ir e[ d ] th at a c o m p ly ing [a u tom o b il e ins u ran ce ] po li cyinclu d e m an d atory [per s onal i nj urypr ot ect i on or“PI P”] benef i t s . ” B r ennan v. Far m er s A l l i ance M ut . I ns . C o. , 961 P. 2d 550, 552 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1998) . M or e s peci fi cal l y , C ol o. R ev. St at . § 10- 4- 706( 1) r equi r ed an i ns ur ance companyt o pr ovi de: 2- 3-

(b )(I) C o m p e n sa tio n w ith o u t re g a rd to fa u lt, u p to a lim it o f fif ty th o u sa n d d o llars p e r p e rso n fo r a n yo n e a c c id e n t, fo r p a ym e n t o f a ll r eas onabl e and ne ces s aryexpens es form edi cal . . . and nonmedi cal r emedi al car e and tr eatm ent. . . per form ed w i thi n fi ve y ear s aft erthe acc i dentforbodi l yi nj uryar i s i ng outof the us e oroper at i on of a m o to r v e h ic le . . . . (c )(I) C o m p e n sa tio n w ith o u t re g a rd to fa u lt u p to a lim it o f fif ty tho u san d d o ll ars p er p erso n fo r an yo n e a cc iden t w ith in ten y ea rs aft ers uch ac ci dentforpaym entof the cos tof r ehabi l i t at i on pr ocedur es ortr eatm entand r ehabi l i t at i ve occ upat i onal tr ai ni ng nece s s arybeca us e of bodi l yi nj ur yar i s i ng outof the us e oroper at i on of a mot orvehi cl e. Fur therm or e, pur s uantt o § 10- 4- 706( 4) ( a) , “[a ] n i ns ur eri s s ui ng pol i ci es pr ovi di ng cover ages as s etfor th i n thi s s ect i on s hal l pr ovi de w r i t t en expl anat i ons o f a ll a v a ila b le c o v e ra g e s p ri o r t o is s u in g a n yp o lic yto a n in s u re d .” Sect i on 10- 4- 707 del i neat es the ca t egor i es of peopl e w ho m us tr ece i ve cover age unde r§ 706 as i ncl udi ng “1) the named i ns ur ed, 2) r es i dentr el at i ves of the named i ns ur ed, 3) pas s enger s occupy i ng the i ns ur ed’ s vehi cl e w i th the cons ent of the i ns ur ed, and 4) pedes tr i ans w ho ar e i nj ur ed bythe cove r ed vehi cl e. ” B r ennan, 961 P. 2d at553. T he N o- Faul tA ctal s o r equi r ed eve ryi ns ur ance companyt o offe ropt i onal extended P IP ben efi t s t o it s i nsureds, i n ex chan ge fo r hi gh er pr em i um s. T hu s, § 1 0 -4 -7 1 0 (2 )(a ) p ro v id e d th a t: E veryi ns ur ers hal l offe rt he fol l ow i ng enhanc ed bene fi t s for i ncl us i on i n a compl y i ng pol i cy , i n addi t i on t o the bas i c cove r ages d e sc rib e d in se c tio n 1 0 -4 -7 0 6 , at th e o p tio n o f th e n a m e d in su re d : ( I ) C om pens at i on of al l expens es of the type des cr i bed i n s ect i on 10- 4- 706( 1) ( b) w i thoutdol l arort i m e l i m i t at i on;- 4-

( I I ) C om pens at i on of al l expens es of the type des cr i bed i n s ect i on 10- 4- 706( 1) ( b) w i thoutdol 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 ghty - fi ve per centof l os s of gr os s i ncome per w eek f r om w or k the i nj ur ed per s on w oul d have pe r form 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 d a ya f te r t h e d a te o f

th e a c c id e n t w ith o u t d o lla r o r t im e lim ita tio n s . C ol o. R ev. St at . § 10- 4- 710( 2) ( a) . A l though § 710 does nots peci fyt o w hom the e x t e n d e d c o v e r a g e s i tp r o v i d e s a p p l i e s , Br e n n a n h e l d th a tth e ya p p l yt o th e s a me fou r cat ego ri es of i nd i vidual s t o w ho m § 7 06 cov erage app l i es. T he C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s hel d i n B r ennan that“w hen . . . an i ns ur er fai l s t o offe rthe i ns ur ed opt i onal cover age thats at i s fi es [C A A R A ] , addi t i onal cover age i n conform i tyw i th the offerm andat ed bys t atut e w i l l be i ncorpor at ed i n t o th e p o l i c y . ” Br e n n a n , 9 6 1 P . 2 d a t5 5 4 ; s e e a l s o T h o mp s o n v . Bu d g e tRe n t - AC a r S y s., In c ., 9 4 0 P .2 d 9 8 7 , 9 9 0 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) (“ [ W ]h e n a p o licyis v io lativ e o f

a sta tu te, re fo rm a tio n is a lso re q u ire d to a ss u re th a t co v e ra g e w ill m eetthe s t atut orym i ni m um s . ”) . T hus , i n B r ennan, beca us e the i ns ur ance pol i cy at i ssu e fail ed to o ffer e x tend ed P IP b en efit s fo r i njured p ed estri an s an d the c o u rt det erm i ned thatthe N o- Faul tA ctm andat ed cove r age fors uch pede s tr i ans , the c o u rt o rd e re d th e p o licyre fo rm e d to in c lu d e su c h c o v e ra g e . S e e C lar k v . S tate F arm M u t. A u to. I n s. C o . , 4 3 3 F . 3 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (C lark III)B ren n an alerted all au tom o b il e ins u ran ce ca rri ers tha t exten d ed P IP 3 benef i t s forpedes tr i ans m us tbe offer ed under§ 710.

- 5- ( “B r ennan a nd T hom ps on r eform ed thos e i ns ur ance pol i ci es t o i ncl ude ext ended p ed estri an co v era g e tha t i n su rers sh o u ld h av e o ffere d u n d er se cti o n 7 1 0 . ”). 3 T he i ns ur ance pol i cyati s s ue i n thi s cas e w as pur chas ed byJ ohn Paul , w ho w a s th e n still m a rrie d to , alth o u g h leg a llyse p a ra ted f ro m , K a telyn ’s m o th e r, A p ril Paul . H e pur chas ed the pol i cyi n A ugus t2000 fr om t he M ar chand A gency , w hi ch w as oper at ed byE l i zabe th M ar chand. C hr i s t i ne Pi t cher( form er l yknow n as C hr i s t i ne C l i ffor d) w as a l i cens ed age ntatM ar chand. B oth E l i zabe th M ar chand and Pi t chert es t i fi ed as t o t hei rs t andar d pr ocedur e forpr oces s i ng an i ns ur ance app l i cat i on from an indi vidual . T he p rocedu re consi st ed o f t hree ph ases— a q u o tatio n p h a se , an a p p lica tio n p h a se a n d a sig n a tu re p h a se . T h e a g e n t w o u ld di s cus s the ava i l abl e cove r ages , i ncl udi ng ext ended PI P cover ages , i n al l t hr ee phas es . T he age ntw oul d al s o us e A l l s t at e’ s “C ol or ado PI P D i s cl os ur e, ” w hi ch descri bed al l extended P IP cov erages, as a vi sual dis playof P IP cov erages. W i th r es pectt o Paul ’ s appl i cat i on, Pi t chert es t i fi ed s he “r eca l l [ed] m oney bei ng an obj ect . . . . [H ] e w ant ed t o go w i th the bas i c per s onal i nj ur ypr ot ect i on c o v e ra g e .” A p p e llan t’s A p p . V o l. II at 4 0 1 . P itch e r f u rth e r te stified th a t sh e to ld h im th e a g g re g a te lim it o f c o v e ra g e fo r t h e e x te n d e d P IP c o v e ra g e w a s $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . Id. at 40 4 . S h e testi fied that, af ter sho w ing h im the a v ail ab le ex tend ed P IPA ll stat e m ail ed all d o cu m en ts t o Jo h n an d A p ri l Pa u l. In fac t, h o w ev er, 4 J ohn and A pr i l Paul fi nal i zed thei rdi vor ce i n N ovember2000. A pr i l Paul t hen m arried p lai n ti ff

S co ttH il l and too k the n am e A p ri l H il l. T h eir da u g h ter, K at el yn, w as born i n A ugus t2001.

- 6- cover ages , bot h on hercomput ers cr een a nd on the PI P D i s cl os ur e For m , s he as ked hi m i f he w ant ed hert o expl ai n thos e i n m or e det ai l and he de cl i ned. Paul pur chas ed a pol i cyw i th the mandat orym i ni m um PI P cover age. A l l s t at e s ubs equent l ym ai l ed t o Paul hi s pol i cy . I ti ncl uded a s um m aryof th e c o v e r a g e s h e s e l e c t e d , i n c l u d i n g th e b a s i c P I P c o v e r a g e . T h e p o l i c y sp ec ifi ca ll ystat ed “O p ti o n al P erso n al InjuryP rotec ti o n co v era g es a lso a re avai l abl e. ” I d. at425. A l ong w i th the pol i cyA l l s t at e mai l ed an “ I m por t ant N oti ce” (Fo rm X 51 88 ) w hich sum m ari zed the m aj or cove rages i n the Pau l s’ pol i cyand i nform ed them t hatt he PI P cover age “ pr ovi des cover age fory ou, y our pas s enger s and pede s tr i ans , w ho ar e i nj ur ed i n an aut om obi l e ac ci dent . ” I d. T he po l i cyal so con t ai ned an eight -page d escr i pti on of the extended P IP cov erages, i ncl udi ng tw o opt i ons w i th unl i m i t ed medi cal cover age. T he pol i cyfur ther pr ovi ded thatA l l s t at e w oul d paybas i c and e xt ended PI P benefi t s “i n acc or dance w ith [ C A A R A ] a n d su bjec t to th e lim its a s s p e c ified in th e L im its o f L iab ili ty pr ovi s i on. ” I d. at439- 40. T he Paul s r enew ed the pol i cyeverys i x m onths fr om A ugus t2000 t hr ough Sept ember 2002. O n Sept ember4, 2001, A l l s t at e mai l ed them a r enew al packe t 4- 7-

w h ich in clud ed a fo rm ca ll ed “Im p o rt an t N o ti ce – A R em ind er fo r Y o u ” (F o rm X 6 7 0 0 9 ), w h ich sta ted in p a rt: A ll stat e o ffers o p ti o n s to p u rch ase A d d it ion al P erso n al Injury P rot ect i on (PIP) benefit s on y ou r A l l st at e auto po l i cy . T hese addi t i onal benef

i t s m i ghtbe veryi m por t antt o y ou oroccupa nt s of y ouri ns ur ed aut o i f y ou ar e i nvol ved i n a s er i ous i nj urycaus i ng acc i dent . A l l s t at e’ s A ddi t i onal ( PI P) opt i ons pr ovi de i ncr eas ed cover ages forM edi cal E xpens es , W or k L os s and Ess ent i al S e rv ic e s . . . . T h e a v era g e[ ] price a sso ciated w ith p u rch asin g A d d it ion al P IP o p tio n s is a ro u n d $ 7 7 . Y o u r P ric e fo r A d d iti o n a l P IP c o v e ra g e w ill v a ryb a se d o n y o u r c h a ra c ter istics (e .g . d riv in g re c o rd , g e o g ra p h ic l ocat i on, age) , char act er i s t i cs of the i ns ur ed aut o ( e. g. , pas s i ve re stra in t sy ste m , se a t b e lts), an d w h e th e r y o u a re e lig ib le fo r c e rta in d is c o u n ts o r s u bje c t to c e rt a in s u rc h a rg e s . . . . T here are ei gh tseparat e cov erage op t i on s that ar e avail able t o ch oo se f ro m . P lea se se e y o u r C o lo ra d o A u to m o b ile P o licyfo r a f u ll expl anat i on of thes e opt i ons . ( A des cr i pt i on of the ei ghtopt i ons can be found unde rA ddi t i onal Per s onal I nj ury , i n the s ect i on t i t l ed “Li m i t s of Li abi l i ty ”. ) I f y ou w i s h t o pur chas e A ddi t i onal Per s onal I nj uryPr ot ect i on ( C over age V 8) opt i ons orhave a nyques t i ons about y ourPI P benefi t s , oraboutanyas pectof y ou i ns ur ance cover age, p lea se fe e l f

re e to c o n tac t y o u r A llstate a g e n t— o r c a ll th e A llstate Cus t o me rI n fo r ma t i o n Ce n t e ra t1 - 8 0 0 - ALLSTATE. I d. at486. A l l s t at e mai l ed the Paul s anotherr enew al packe ti n M ar ch 2002, w h ich a g a in in c lu d e d th e a b o v e N o tice (F o rm X 6 7 0 0 9 ). T h e P a u ls c o n tin u e d to r enew the pol i cyw i th the mi ni m um PI P cover age. O n J ul y25, 2002, A pr i l and K at el yn H i l l w er e i nvol ved i n a s er i ous aut om obi l e ac ci dent , i n w hi ch A pr i l di ed and t en- m onth- ol d K at el yn w as se rio u slyinju re d . A llstate p a id a p p ro x im a tely$ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 in b a sic P IP b e n e fits to S cottH i l l for K at el yn’s car e. W hen A l l st at e refused t o m ake f urther pay m ents ,- 8-

Hi l l s u e d Al l s t a t e a n d M s . M a r c h a n d i n s t a t e c o u r t . He ma d e v a r i o u s c l a i ms u n d e r C A A R A a n d s o u g h t, in tera lia , refo rm a tio n o f th e in su ra n c e p o licyto r equi r e A l l s t at e t o payext ended PI P benefi t s t o K at el yn, and damages forbr eac h of contr actand bad fai th r efus al t o pay . A l l s t at e r emoved t he ca s e t o fede r al co u rto n the b asis o f d iversityo f th e p arti es. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 4 , the d istri ct co u rt d ism issed : ( 1 ) H il l’ s claim s fo r esse n ti al serv ices u n d er C A A R A ; ( 2 ) H il l’ s cl ai m s forl os tw ages on behal f of A pr i l H i l l ; ( 3) H i l l ’ s cl ai m s agai ns tM ar chand beca us e s he had be en fr audul ent l yj oi ned; and ( 4) H i l l ’ s cl ai m s as s er t ed i n an i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty. I n J une 2005, co- defe ndantM er as t arI ns ur ance C om panym oved forpart i al s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n H ill’ s lo s t- w a g e c la im o n b e h a lf o f K a te lyn u n d e r C A A R A . T h e d istri ct co u rtg ran ted M era star’s m o ti o n . A ll stat e the rea fter joine d M era star’s m ot i on, i ncorpor at i ng M er as t ar ’ s undi s put ed fa ct s and ar gum ent s . T he courtthen gr ant ed A l l s t at e’ s m ot i on. A l l s t at e then fi l ed a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm enton H i l l ’ s cl ai m s for r eform at i on, br eac h of contr act , and bad fai th. H i l l fi l ed a c r os s - m ot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a rg u in g , in tera lia , th a tAl l s t a t e h a d fa i l e d , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w, t o m ake a n adequa t e offerof enha nced PI P benefi t s underC A A R A . T he di s tr i ct co u rtg ran ted A ll stat e’s m o ti o n , co n clud ing (1) “ as a m att er o f law that A ll stat e’s offe rof [e nhance d PI P] cover age t o Paul compl i ed w i th the r equi r ement s of- 9-

§ 10- 4- 710; ” ( 2) “as a mat t erof l aw thatthe A l l s t at e pol i cydocument s pr ovi de the cove r ages r equi r ed byt he N o- Faul tA ct [; ] [t ] her efor e, H i l l ’ s cl ai m that A l l s t at e’ s offe rof [e nhance d PI P] cover ages w as faul tybeca us e A l l s t at e’ s pol i cy w a s fa u lty m u s t fa il.” O rd e r a t 1 2 -1 3 , A p p e lla n t’ s A p p . V o l. I II a t 8 1 4 -1 5 . B eca us e H i l l ’ s br eac h of contr actand bad fai th cl ai m s depende d upon t he r eform at i on of the i ns ur ance pol i cy , the di s tr i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed them aft er concl udi ng thatthe pol i cyw oul d notbe r eform ed. H i l l appea l s , ar gui ng the di s tr i ctcour terr ed i n hol di ng: ( 1) thatan offerof en h an ce d P IP b en efit s co m p li ed w ith the N o -F au ltA ct ev en tho u g h the b asic P IP des cr i pt i on i n the pol i cydi d notexpl i ci t l ys t at e thati tcover ed pede s tr i ans and the enhanc ed PI P des cr i pt i on di d notexpl i ci t l ys t at e thati tcover ed pede s tr i ans or non- r es i dentr el at i ve pas s enger s ; ( 2) an offerof enha nced PI P benefi t s compl i ed w i th the N o- Faul tA ctdes pi t e omi s s i ons and mi s s t at ement s i n the or al and w r i t t en repr esent at i on s and m at eri al s conce rni ng such b enefi t s; (3) K at el yn’s w age-l oss cl ai m m us tbe di s m i s s ed; and ( 4) the pol i cycont ai ns an aggr egat e l i m i teven th o u g h th e p o licyc o n tain s n o sp e c ific w ritten lim it.

DI S CU S S I ON In d iv e rsityc a se s lik e th is o n e , the su b sta n tiv e law o f th e fo ru m sta te governs the ana l y s i s of the under l y i ng cl ai m s , “butw e ar e governed byfede r al- 10-

law in d eterm ining the p rop ri etyo f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary ju d g m e n t.” E c k v . P a rk e , D a v is & C o ., 2 5 6 F .3 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 6 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). A ccor di ngl y , “[w ] e r evi ew t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, appl y i ng t he s ame st andar d as the di s tr i ctcour tpur s uantt o R ul e 56( c) of the Feder al R ul es of C iv il P ro c e d u re .” G w in n v . A w m ille r, 3 5 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 1 , 1 2 1 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ).

“ S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if ‘th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n ta s a m a t t e ro f l a w . ’ ” I d . ( q u o t i n g F e d . R . C i v . P . 5 6 ( c ) ) . We e x a m i n e th e r e c o r d i n t h e l i g h tm o s tfa v o r a b l e t o th e n o n - m o v i n g p a r ty.

I . F ai l ure t o enum erat e pedes t ri ans/ non-r es i dent pass engers A s ind icated , § 7 1 0 stat es th at an insu rer “sh all o ffer” en h an ce d P IP benef i t s fori ncl us i on i n a compl y i ng i ns ur ance pol i cy . H i l l ar gues t hatt he pol i cy A l l s t at e i s s ued t o t he Paul s w as nota compl y i ng pol i cyundert he N o- Faul tA ct b ec au se itfa il ed to ex p li cit lystat e tha t ped estri an s are eli g ible fo r m inim u m P IP benef i t s , orthatpedes tr i ans and non- r es i dentr el at i ve pas s enger s ar e el i gi bl e for ext ended PI P benefi t s . A l l s t at e r es ponds w i th tw o ar gum ent s : fi r s t , i ti s not n ec essa ryfo r a p o li cyto sp ec ifi ca ll yli st th e typ es o f p erso n s co v ere d b yP IP b e n e fits a n d e n h a n c e d P IP b e n e fits; an d se c o n d , H ill lac k s s tan d in g to c o m p lainW e not e, how ever , thats ever al court s have he l d thata non- pedes tr i an s uch 5 as H i l l , on behal f of K at el yn, l acks s t andi ng t o s eek r eform at i on on the gr ound thatcover age of

pedes tr i ans w as al l egedl ynotoffe r ed. See R ei d v. G ei co G en. I n s . Co . , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 8 4 4 3 8 1 , a t* 3 ( D. Co l o . Oc t . 2 , 2 0 0 6 ) ; W i l s o n v . Ti t a n I n d e m. C o . , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 5 8 3 1 3 3 , at ** 1 -2 (D . C o lo. Se p t. 6 , 2 0 0 6 ).

- 11- aboutthe al l eged fai l ur e t o s peci fi cal l ydefi ne pede s tr i ans and/ ornon- r es i dent rel at i ve p assengers as ben efi ci ari es becau se K at el yn, the indi vidual on w ho se beh al f he seek s addit i on al ben efi t s, w as nei ther. W e agree w i th A l l st at e’s fi rs t a rg u m e n t an d , as to th e se c o n d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H ill h a s s tan d in g b e c a u se , in thi s par t i cul arcas e, t he compl ai nti s expl i ci t l yfr amed as a contr act/ t or tact i on, w h i c h r a i s e s th e fa c tu a l q u e s t i o n o f w h e th e rh e w a s o ffe r e d a c o m p l i a n tp o l i c y. 5 A s A ll stat e p o ints ou t, the N o -F au ltA ct do es n o t r eq u ir e ins u ran ce ca rri ers t o s peci fi cal l yl i s tthos e ca t egor i es of el i gi bl e i nj ur ed per s ons . I tr equi r es i ns ur ance carr i er s t o pr ovi de bas i c PI P and offe rext ended PI P benefi t s . T he A ct further cert ai nlym and at es cove r age fort hos e ca t egor i es of el i gi bl e i nj ur ed per s ons , i ncl udi ng pedes tr i ans and non- r es i dentr el at i ve pas s enger s , buti tdoes notaff i r m at i vel yr equi r e thattheybe enumer at ed i n everypol i cy . See C al der on v. St at e Farm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 2005 W L 2304735, at*4 ( D . C ol o. Sept . 21, 2 0 0 5 ) (find ing “a s a m att er o f law that § 1 0 -4-7 1 0 . . . d id n o t r eq u ir e S tat e F arm to li st th e typ es o f p erso n s w h o w ere co v ere d b yP IP an d [e n h an ce d ] P IP c o v e ra g e s, in c lu d in g p e d e stria n s, w h e n it o ffe re d [ e n h a n c e d ] P IP c o v e ra g e s to its i ns ur eds ”) ; Si gal a v. H art for d U nderw r i t er s I ns . C o. , 2005 W L 2098141, at* 6T he C l ark cas es i nvol ved the s i tuat i on w her e an a ut om obi l e i ns ur ed by 6 S tate F a rm stru c k R ick yC lar k , a p e d e stria n . C lar k filed a c las s-a c tio n su it a g a i n s tS t a t e F a r m s e e k i n g t o c o l l e c te x t e n d e d P I P b e n e fi t s u n d e rCA AR A. At thatt i m e, St at e Farm ’ s pol i ci es cont ai ned an e xpr es s Pedes tr i an Li m i t at i on p ro v is io n e x c lu d in g p e d e s tr ia n s f ro m c o v e ra g e u n d e r t h e e x te n d e d P IP p ro v is io n s . A s the C ol or ado C our tof A ppeal s m ade c l eari n B r ennan, s uch a l i m i t at i on v i o l a t e s CA AR A. On a p p e a l f r o m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l o f a l l c l a i ms , we h eld th at B ren n an req u ir ed refo rm ati o n o f th e p o li cyto p rov ide e x tend ed P IP b e n e fits fo r C la rk , a n inju re d p e d e s tr ia n . C la rk v . S ta te F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., 319 F. 3d 12134 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( C l ark I ) . W e r emanded fora det erm i nat i on of a n e ffe c tiv e d a te fo r th e re fo rm a tio n a n d th e a m o u n t o f e x ten d e d P IP b e n e fits to w hi ch C l ark w as ent i t l ed. T he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded thatt he pr oper r eform at i on dat e w as the dat e of i t s or derand found thatC l ark w as ent i t l ed t o t he s ta tu to ry a g g re g a te c a p o f $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 . C la rk v . S ta te F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., 292 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1270 ( D . C ol o. 2003) ( C l ark I I ) . C l ark I I I w as our d e c isio n a ffirm in g C lar k II o n a p p e a l.

- 12- ( D . C ol o. A ug. 29, 2005) ( r ej ect i ng ar gum entthatr eform at i on w as r equi r ed “bec aus e the H art for d pol i cyfai l ed t o i ncl ude [e nhance d] PI P benefi t s fornonfa m il yo cc u p an ts an d p ed estri an s”). F u rth e rm o re , A llstate ’s p o licye x p licitlysta ted it w o u ld p ro v id e b e n e fits in acc or dance w i th the A ct , w hi ch i ncl udes pr ovi di ng cover age forpedes tr i ans and n o n -re sid e n t re lativ e p a ss e n g e rs. T h e re is n o a lleg a tio n th a t A llstate re f u se d to p ro v id e c o v e ra g e fo r a n e lig ib le p e d e stria n o r n o n -re sid e n t p a ss e n g e r. T h a t is w hatdi s t i ngui s hes t hi s cas e fr om thos e i n w hi ch the courthas r equi r ed r eform at i on. A s A l l s t at e poi nt s out , B r ennan and our C l ark deci s i ons i nvol ved 6 pedes tr i ans w ho w er e expr es s l ydeni ed cove r age byan i ns ur ance carr i er . I n s uch a ca s e, r eform at i on w as r equi r ed bec aus e i tw as abs ol ut el ycl eart hatt he i nj ur edSever al court s have not ed that , underC ol or ado l aw , “[r ] eform at i on of a 7 w r i t t en i ns trum enti s appr opr i at e onl yw hen the i ns trum entdoes notr epr es entt he true agr eementof the part i es . T he purpos e of r eform at i on i s t o gi ve effec tt o t he p a rties ’ a c tu a l in ten tio n s.” C a rd e r, In c . v . C a sh , 9 7 P .3 d 1 7 4 , 1 8 0 -8 1 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). W h ere the in su red h as e x p resslyd ec li n ed the o p ti o n al ex tend ed P IP benef i t s , thes e court s have he l d thatr eform at i on t o pr ovi de thos e opt i onal ext ended PI P benefi t s on t he gr ound thatt her e w as an err oneous pedes tr i an exclusi on “w ou l d n ot r efl ectthe int ent of the p art i es[] [as the insur ed’s] ex p resse d inten ti o n w as to d ec li n e [ the in su ran ce ca rri er’s] offe r of ad d it ion al P IP b e n e fi t s . ” M o r r i s v . T r a v e l e r s I n d e mn i tyCo . , 2 0 0 6 WL 1 8 8 9 9 6 3 , a t* 1 0 ( D. C o l o . J u l y1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) ; S i g a l a v . H a r t fo r d U n d e rw r i t e r s I n s . C o . , 2 0 0 5 WL 2098141, at*6 ( D . C ol o. A ug. 29, 2005) ( “The fac tt hatt he pol i ci es i s s ued t o [the pl ai nt i ff] cont ai ned i nacc ur at e des cr i pt i ons of the [a ddi t i onal ] PI P cover age that [ p lain tiff] h a d b e e n o ffe re d , an d w h ich sh e d e c lin e d , d o e s n o t su p p o rt h e r c laim forr eform at i on. ”)

- 13- per s on, a pede s tr i an, had bee n deni ed cove r age t o w hi ch he w as ent i t l ed and that such co verage h ad clear l yno tbeen offered t o the i nsured. T he P auls w ere offe r ed ext ended PI P benefi t s cover i ng per s ons el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve bene fi t s underthe N oF a u lt A c t. T h e ys p e c ific a lly c h o s e to p u rc h a s e o n ly th e b a s ic P IP b e n e fits . R eform at i on of the contr acti s notr equi r ed w her e the cl ai m ed vi ol at i on of the N oFaul tA ctw as the fa i l ur e t o expr es s l yenumer at e al l the part i es el i gi bl e t o r ece i ve PI P benefi t s , as oppos ed t o the fa i l ur e t o offe rthos e bene fi t s and the s ubs equent fai l ur e t o pr ovi de cove r age. 7 A l t ernat i vel y , w e hol d t hat , gi ven al l t he mat er i al s t hatw er e mai l ed and otherw i s e pr ovi ded t o t he Paul s , t heyw er e ade quat el yi nform ed thatpedes tr i ans and passeng ers w ere el i gibl e t o recei ve P IP ben efi t s.- 14-

I I . Suffi ci ency of offer H i l l argues the ini t i al offer of i nsurance, part i cular l yextended P IP ben efi t s, w as i nadequa t e bec aus e Pi t cherfai l ed t o expl ai n i tful l yand the s urr oundi ng d o c u me n t a t i o n c o n t a i n e d mi s s t a t e me n t s a n d o mi s s i o n s o f v a r i o u s i t e ms . He c o n ten d s th a t th e o ffe rs to re n e w th e P a u l in su ra n c e p o licyw e re sim ilarly i nadequa t e. W hi l e § 710 s t at es thatan i ns ur er“s hal l offe r ” enha nced PI P benefi t s t o an i ns ur ed, the s t atut e does notdefi ne “offer . ” I n B r ennan, t he C ol or ado C our tof A p p ea ls st ated that “a ll that is r eq u ir ed is th at th e ins u rer of f ert hes e ext ended b e n e fits .” B re n n a n , 9 6 1 P .2 d a t 5 5 4 . In F a z io v . S ta te F a rm M u t. A u to . In s . C o ., 55 P. 3d 229, 231 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 2002) , t he courts t at ed that“[t ] he pl ai n m eani ng of thi s l anguage i s thata named i ns ur ed w ho has m i ni m um PI P cover age unde r § 10- 4- 706 m us tbe offer ed an opportuni tyt o pur chas e ce r t ai n types of enha nced P IP c o v e ra g e .” I n an unpubl i s hed dec i s i on, ourcourt , i n det erm i ni ng w hethert he i ns ur er had ful fi l l ed i t s dutyt o offe ropt i onal ext ended PI P cover age unde r§ 710, appl i ed the t es ts etoutbythe C ol or ado Supr eme C our ti n A l l s t at e I ns . C o. v. Par fr ey , 830 P. 2d 905, 913 ( C ol o. 1992) . J ohns on v. St at e Farm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 158 Fed. A ppx. 119 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( unpubl i s hed) . Par fr eyi nvol ved the r equi r ement i m pos ed on i ns ur ance compani es byC ol o. R ev. St at . § 10- 4- 609( b) ( 2) t o offe rN otal l court s agr ee thatPar fr eys houl d appl yt o the not i ce r equi r ementof 8 (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 15- higher than the st atutorym i nim um i n u ninsur ed o r underi nsured m otor i st c o v e ra g e . W e d o n o t r e ly o n u n p u b lis h e d d e c is io n s a s a u th o ri ta tiv e p re c e d e n t. H ow ever , w e t ake thi s oppor tuni tyt o adoptand publ i s h the fol l ow i ng l anguage , a s w e ll a s la n g u a g e q u o te d , i nfr a , fr om an unpubl i s hed dec i s i on. I n anal y zi ng “the n ature an d sco p e o f a n insu rer’s du ty ” the C o lorad o S u p rem e C o u rt “det erm i ned thatt he i ns ur erm us tper form i t s dutyof not i fi cat i on ‘ i n a manner r eas onabl ycal cul at ed t o perm i tthe [i ns ur ed] t o m ake a n i nform ed dec i s i on on w h e th e r to p u rc h a se . . . co v e ra g e h ig h e r th a n th e m in im u m sta tu to ryliab ili ty lim its .’” J o h n s o n , 1 5 8 F e d . A p p x . a t 1 2 1 (q u o tin g P a rf re y , 8 3 0 P .2 d a t 9 1 3 ). Par fr eyel abor at ed on the pr opert es tfordet erm i ni ng w hetheran i ns ur erhas p e r fo r m e d i t s d u ty t o n o t i f y: In d e te rm in in g w h e th e r a n in s u re r h a s f u lfille d its s ta tu to ry d u ty, a c o u rt m a ya p p ro p ria telyc o n sid e r su c h fa c to rs a s th e c lar ityw ith w hi ch the purpos e of . . . cover age w as expl ai ned t o the i ns ur ed, w h e th e r th e e x p lan a tio n w a s m a d e o ra llyo r in w riting , the sp e c ificity of the opt i ons m ade know n t o the i ns ur ed, the pr i ce a tw hi ch the di ffe r entl evel s of . . . cover age w oul d be pur chas ed, and anyother ci r cumst ance s bear i ng on the ade quacyand cl ar i tyof the not i fi cat i on an d o ffer. Par fr ey , 830 P. 2d at913. “I n the fi nal anal y s i s , ” the s uffi ci encyof the offer

“ m u st b e re so lv e d u n d e r th e to talityo f th e c irc u m sta n c e s.” Id . at 9 1 4 . B o th p a rties h e re a d v o c a te a p p lica tio n o f th e P a rf re yto talityo f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s te st. 8( . . . cont i nued) 8 C ol o. R ev. St at . § 10- 4- 710. See, e. g. , M ayv. T r avel er s Pr op. C as . C o. , 2006 W L 2784864, at*3 ( D . C ol o. Sept . 26, 2006) ( not i ng thati t“ques t i on[s ] w hetherthe comm er ci al r eas onabl enes s t es ts etfor th i n Par fr eyi s the corr ects t andar d under w h ich to ev alua te th e su ffici en cyo f T rav elers’ o ffer to M r. M ay[u n d er § 7 1 0 ]” butfur thernot i ng t hat“s ever al cas es fr om thi s D i s tr i cthave ut i l i zed the Par fr ey s t andar d i n s i m i l arcas es ”) ; L us tv. St at e Farm M ut . A ut o. I ns . C o. , 412 F. Supp. 2d 1185, 1191- 92 ( D . C ol o. 2006) ( not i ng thatpl ai nt i ff’ s r el i ance on the Par fr ey testto sh o w that n o ti ce u n d er § 7 1 0 w as n o t cl ea r “is un av ail ing ”).

- 16- W hetherw e appl yt he s peci fi c fa ct or s s etouti n Par fr eyors i m pl yl ook at the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude thatA l l s t at e’ s offe rof ext ended PI P benefi t s t o Paul w as adequa t e and e nabl ed the Paul s t o m ake a n i nform ed deci s i on aboutw hethert o pur chas e ext ended c over age. I ni t i al l y , Paul had a face t o- fac e meet i ng w i th Pi t cher , i n w hi ch s he t es t i fi ed s he expl ai ned the var i ous cover ages , s how ed Paul the opt i ons forext ended PI P cover age on he rcomput er s cr een a nd w entoverthe PI P D i s cl os ur e For m . I n J ohns on, w e hel d thata fa cet o- fac e meet i ng i n w hi ch the age ntexpl ai ned the ext ended PI P cover ages , coupl ed w ith a b roc h u re w h ich p rov ided a sh o rtex p lana ti o n o f a n d ch art de scribing P IP c o v e ra g e s, c o n stitu ted a su fficie n t o ffe r u n d e r th e N o -F a u lt A c t. W e n o ted th a t: the P arfr eyanaly si s does no trequi re an i nsurert o thoroug hlyadd res s al l of the conc ei vabl e s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch enha nced PI P cover age m i ghtbe des i r abl e. R ather , the l aw m er el yr equi r ed thatthe i ns ur ed b[e] gi ven enough i nform at i on t o advi s e the i ns ur ed of the avai l abi l i tyof cove r age a nd perm i ta r eas onabl yi nform ed dec i s i on o n w h e th e r to p u rc h a se it.- 17-

J ohns on, 158 Fed. A ppx. at122. H er e, Pi t cherexpl ai ned the PI P cover ages and offe r ed t o quot e Paul a pr i ce forext ended PI P cover age. Paul decl i ned the pr i ce q u o te. P it ch er a lso p rese n ted P au l w ith a w ri tt en su m m aryo f th e v ariou s P IP c o v e r a g e s i n th e Co l o r a d o P I P Di s c l o s u r e F o r m. T hen, the pol i cyw hi ch A l l s t at e mai l ed t o the Paul s cont ai ned an e i ght - page des cr i pt i on of the ext ended PI P cover ages avai l abl e. For m X 5188 acc om pani ed the pol i cyand i ts peci fi cal l ys t at ed thatPI P cover age pr ovi ded bene fi t s forthe named i ns ur eds , thei rpas s enger s and pede s tr i ans . T hi s form w as m ai l ed t o the P au ls on su b seq u en t occ asio n s as w ell . A d d it ion all y , A ll stat e m ail ed F o rm X 6 7 0 0 9 to th e P a u ls o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s, a n d it sp e c ifica llysta ted th a t A llstate o ffe re d e x te n d e d P IP b e n e fits a n d p ro v id e d a n a v e ra g e p ri c e fo r s u c h c o v e ra g e . W hi l e H i l l ar gues ther e w er e s peci fi c ar guabl yambi guous phr as es and/ or w or di ngs i n the var i ous document s , i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o concl ude that , fr om al l the above i nform at i on, the Paul s w er e unabl e t o m ake a r eas onabl yi nform ed dec i s i on nott o pur chas e the ext ended PI P cover age.- 18-

III. W a g e-loss b en efits Be c a u s e Hi l l ’ s c l a i m fo rwa g e - l o s s b e n e fi t s fo rKa t e l yn u n l i mi t e d i n t i me d e p e n d s u p o n th e in su ra n c e p o licyb e in g re fo rm e d to p ro v id e K a telyn w ithW e d en yA ll stat e’s m o ti o n to stri k e H il l’ s R u le 28 (j ) l ett er. 9

- 19- ext ended PI P benefi t s , ourconcl us i on t hatr eform at i on i s notnece s s arydi s pos es of thi s i s s ue.

I V . A ppl i cabi l i t y ofaggregat e l i m i t of$200, 000 B e c a u se th e iss u e o f

w h e th e r a n a g g re g a te lim it o f $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 a p p lies to K at el yn’ s cl ai m al s o depends upon the i ns ur ance pol i cybei ng r eform ed t o pr ovi de K at el yn w i th ext ended PI P benefi t s , ourconcl us i on thatr eform at i on i s not n e c e ss a ryd isp o se s o f th is iss u e a s w e ll.

CO NC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e o r d e r s o f t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r ta r e AF F I RMED . 9