Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/uninsured-motorist/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:49:56+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Munoz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. on Monday, September 10, 2018.
In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether an insured is entitled to collect prejudgment interest when he settles an uninsured motorist claim with his insurer. The court held that, under the plain language of the prejudgment interest statute, C.R.S. § 13-21-101, an insured is entitled to prejudgment interest only after (1) an action is brought, (2) the plaintiff claims damages and interest in the complaint, (3) there is a finding of damages by a jury or court, and (4) judgment is entered. Because Munoz did not meet all of these conditions, the court concluded he is not entitled to prejudgment interest.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Airth v. Zurich American Insurance Co. on Thursday, January 25, 2018.
Airth was seriously injured in an accident while operating a semi truck owned by his employer, Sole Transport LLC, d/b/a Solar Transport Company (Solar). He was struck by a negligent, uninsured driver. Solar had uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance coverage of $50,000 for its employees through a policy issued by Zurich American Insurance Co. Airth brought a claim for declaratory relief, seeking to reform Solar’s policy to provide UM/UIM coverage of $1 million. He alleged he was entitled to the higher amount because Zurich had failed, as required by C.R.S. § 10-4-609, to (1) offer Solar UM/UIM coverage in an amount equal to its bodily injury liability coverage ($1 million), and (2) produce a written rejection by Solar of such an offer. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court entered judgment for Zurich ruling, as a matter of law, that (1) Zurich’s documents adequately offered Solar UM/UIM coverage in an amount equal to the bodily injury liability limits of the policy, and (2) there is no requirement that the rejection of UM/UIM limits in an amount equal to liability limits be in writing.
On appeal, Airth contended that both of the district court’s rulings were incorrect and the court therefore erred in granting Zurich’s summary judgment motion and denying Airth’s cross-motion. C.R.S. § 10-4-609(1)(a) prohibits an insurer from issuing an automobile liability policy unless a minimum amount of UM/UIM coverage is included in the policy, except where the named insured rejects UM/UIM coverage in writing. C.R.S. § 10-4-609(2) requires an insurer, before a policy is issued or renewed, to offer the insured the right to obtain UM/UIM coverage in an amount equal to the insured’s bodily injury liability limits. The facts here were undisputed. Before renewing Solar’s policy, Zurich sent a package of documents pertaining to Solar’s rights related to UM/UIM coverage and Solar’s counsel affirmed that he had read all the documents. This included an opportunity to reject UM/UIM coverage or to select a higher than minimum level of UM/UIM coverage. Airth argued that none of this constituted an “offer” of the ability to obtain higher UM/UIM coverage, because the documents did not contain a premium quote or a way to estimate the premium for purchasing UM/UIM coverage commensurate with a bodily injury liability limit of $1 million. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed that this would be the case if it were applying the meaning of the term “offer” as used in contract law. But the Colorado Supreme Court has attributed a different meaning to “offer” as it is used in C.R.S. § 10-4-609; the dispositive question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the insured was adequately informed that higher UM/UIM coverage was available. Here, that standard was met by the documents Zurich provided to Solar.
Airth also argued that Zurich was not entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence that anyone from Solar read or understood the document. This argument overlooks that attestation of Solar’s counsel.
Airth further argued that reversal is required because the documents were signed and dated a month after the policy went into effect. The operative question is whether the insurer gave the insured the opportunity to purchase statutorily-compliant coverage before the insured needed it. The record reflects that Solar had received and responded to the notification and offer before the accident that injured Airth.
Airth also contended that the district court erred in determining that the statute only requires a written rejection with respect to the minimum UM/UIM coverage available and not to the additional coverage available. The court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that a written rejection is required only if the insured declines the minimum amount of UM/UIM coverage, which was not the case here.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on Thursday, January 12, 2017.
Insurance—Covered Motor Vehicle—Underinsured Motorist Provision—Farm Tractor.
Bunker was driving a farm tractor when he collided with Smith’s truck. The hay spears attached to the tractor pierced the truck and impaled Smith, leaving him severely injured. Bunker pleaded guilty to careless driving, and Smith settled his claim against Bunker for Bunker’s liability policy limits. Because this settlement did not fully compensate Smith for his injuries, he filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). State Farm denied coverage on the basis that a farm tractor is not a motor vehicle. Smith sued and the district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the tractor was not a covered motor vehicle for purposes of the UIM coverage policy.
On appeal, Smith contended that his policy’s property damage coverage section definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” is included in the UIM coverage provision. The Colorado Court of Appeals declined to extend the “uninsured motor vehicle” definition found only in the property damage coverage provision beyond that provision.
Smith next contended that the plain and ordinary meaning of “motor vehicle” includes the tractor. The court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning is an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and one with rubber tires for use on highways. Applying this definition, the court found that the tractor had wheels and its own motor, was not operated on rails, and was designed for use on streets and highways. Therefore, it was a covered motor vehicle under Smith’s UIM coverage provision.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kovac v. Farmers Insurance Exchange on Thursday, January 12, 2017.
Personal Injury—Underinsured Motorist—Statute of Limitations—Summary Judgment.
Kovac was seriously injured in a car accident with Filipelli. It was undisputed that Filipelli was at fault. Kovac’s medical expenses exceeded $1.4 million. Filipelli was covered by Shelter Insurance Company (Shelter) with a liability limit of $100,000. Kovac was insured under two different automobile policies with Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers).
Kovac settled with Shelter for its policy limits. Later, Farmers offered to settle Kovac’s remaining claims for $80,000, but the parties could not reach a settlement. Kovac sued Farmers on April 3, 2015 for recovery of UIM benefits, tortious bad faith breach of contract, and unreasonable delay and denial of insurance benefits. Farmers moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the Shelter settlement check was tendered to Kovac’s attorney on April 2, 2013 and the statute of limitations therefore ran on April 2, 2015. The district court agreed and dismissed the suit.
On appeal, Kovac argued that although her attorney received the check and settlement offer on April 2, it was not accepted until April 5 when the release was signed and the check endorsed. Therefore, the statute of limitations ran on April 5, 2015 and her complaint was timely filed on April 3, 2015. C.R.S. § 13-80-107.5(b) provides that the statute of limitations runs two years from the date when the insured “received payment of the settlement” on the underlying bodily injury claim. The court of appeals determined that Kovac released her claims against Filipelli on April 5, 2013. Therefore the statute of limitations had not run when she filed her complaint against Farmers.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Peden v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on Tuesday, November 15, 2016.
Wendy Peden was among a group of friends drinking and celebrating the birthday of Terrell Graf’s fiancee. Mr. Graf gathered the friends into the van he had purchased for his fiancee, drove away, and crashed. Ms. Peden suffered serious injuries. She obtained $240,000 in insurance benefits, but claimed more in underinsured motorist benefits. State Farm initially denied the claim, but ultimately paid her $350,000, the maximum amount available. Ms. Peden sued State Farm for bad faith under Colorado common law and statutory law.
Ms. Peden argued in her claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits that she had seven forms of injury totaling from $647,484.76 to $1,115,504.76. Ms. Peden sought benefits from a State Farm policy carried by Mr. Graf’s fiancee and also from her own State Farm policy. State Farm denied the claim, stating that the $240,000 she had received had fairly compensated her. When Ms. Peden brought suit against State Farm, it investigated further and ultimately paid her the maximum amount allowable under the policies. Ms. Peden continued to claim that State Farm had unreasonably delayed payment of benefits. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the handling of the claim was reasonable as a matter of law. Ms. Peden moved for partial summary judgment on her statutory bad faith claim. The district court granted State Farm’s motion, and Ms. Peden appealed.
The Tenth Circuit found that under Colorado law, all insurance contracts contain an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and that there is both a common law and statutory duty to handle claims in good faith. For an uninsured motorist claim involving a breach of the common law duty, the insured must prove that the insurer acted unreasonably under the circumstances and knowingly or recklessly disregarded the validity of the insured’s claim. A statutory claim includes a requirement that the insurer cannot “unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim.” The Tenth Circuit examined industry standards and determined that State Farm had a duty to investigate the claim as diligently to prove its merit as it would to deny benefits, and had a duty to find all facts to try to understand the claimant’s medical condition. The Tenth Circuit found that in this case, State Farm had discredited Ms. Peden’s claim because she went for a ride with a drunk driver. Ms. Peden argued that she did not know Mr. Graf was drunk and she did not think he was going to drive the vehicle—she believed they were only getting in the van to take a group picture. State Farm did not interview Ms. Peden or otherwise investigate her story. The Tenth Circuit found that by failing to interview Ms. Peden, State Farm breached its duty.
The Tenth Circuit also found that State Farm unreasonably failed to investigate the total amount of damages before denying Ms. Peden’s claim. State Farm did not include any payment for future noneconomic damages, prejudgment interest, or wage loss in its initial valuation of the claim, and its tender of damages was between 24 and 42 percent of the amounts claimed by Ms. Peden. The Tenth Circuit found that a reasonable fact-finder could infer that State Farm failed to adequately investigate the damages that would have been available to Ms. Peden if she had sued Mr. Graf. The Tenth Circuit noted that State Farm could have consulted with a physician, asked Ms. Peden to submit to a physical examination, or interviewed her, and it did none of these things. The Tenth Circuit held that a fact-finder could question the reasonableness of this investigation.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm. The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s denial of Ms. Peden’s partial summary judgment motion as moot, since it was no longer moot. The Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court for further findings.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. on Monday, November 7, 2016.
Statutory Construction—Automobile Insurance Coverage—Automobile Insurance Setoffs— Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Policy Coverage.
Calderon sustained injuries caused by an uninsured driver. Calderon was insured under policies issued by American Family Mutual Insurance Co., which paid the $5,000 policy limit of Calderon’s medical payments (MedPay) coverage but disputed the amount due under the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. Calderon filed suit, and the jury returned a verdict of $68,338.97 in his favor. The trial court reduced the award, pursuant to a provision of the policy agreement, by the $5,000 that had already been paid under MedPay coverage. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, interpreting the language of C.R.S. § 10-4-609(1)(c), which prohibits setoffs from “[t]he amount of the [UM/UIM] coverage available pursuant to this section,” as barring only those setoffs that would reduce the coverage limit, or $300,000. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed and held that “[t]he amount of the [UM/UIM] coverage available pursuant to this section” refers to the amount of UM/UIM coverage available on a particular claim (here, $68,338.97), rather than the amount available in the abstract (here, $300,000). Therefore, C.R.S. § 10-4-609(1) barred the setoff of MedPay payments from Calderon’s UM/UIM claim.
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Grippin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on Thursday, September 8, 2016.
Shane Grippin was seriously injured when he was hit by a truck while riding his motorcycle. After collecting the policy limits on the tortfeasor’s insurance and his motorcycle insurance, Grippin sought underinsured motorist benefits from State Farm pursuant to his grandparents’ four policies on which he was named as an “other household driver.” Although Grippin owned a home in Colorado Springs, he and his family resided approximately one week per month with his grandparents.
State Farm moved for summary judgment on the grounds that because Grippin did not reside primarily with his grandparents, he was not a “resident relative” as contemplated by the policies. Grippin responded that State Farm’s definition of “resident relative” was void as against public policy because the qualifier “primarily” diluted the statutory definition of resident relative. He alternatively argued the contracts were ambiguous because he was listed as an “other household driver” and therefore had a reasonable expectation of coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, and Grippin appealed.
On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals evaluated Colorado’s statutory mandate of uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage and noted that insurance policy provisions that attempt to dilute, condition, or limit statutorily mandated coverage are void and unenforceable. The court of appeals evaluated the definition of resident relative under C.R.S. § 10-4-601(13) and found no qualifying language as to the insured’s primary residence. The court of appeals agreed with Grippin that a person can have multiple residences under Colorado law and the statute’s plain language does not restrict the definition of “resident relative” to a single, “primary” residence. State Farm argued that Grippin’s reading would render some statutory language superfluous, but the court of appeals disagreed, finding the statutory definition cohesive.
The court of appeals disagreed with Grippin’s alternative contention that the contracts were ambiguous, since the policies at issue unambiguously failed to list Grippin as a covered insured. The court also determined that Grippin could not rely on the doctrine of reasonable expectations because that doctrine would only apply after coverage was determined.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hansen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. on Monday, June 20, 2016.
Insurance—Ambiguity, Uncertainty, or Conflict—Persons Covered—Unfair Practices—Bad Faith—Penalties.
Respondent Hansen was injured in a motor vehicle accident and presented an underinsured motorist claim to petitioner American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American Family). As proof of insurance, Hansen offered lienholder statements issued to her by American Family’s local agent that identified her as the named insured at the time of the accident. American Family’s own records, however, indicated that the named insureds on the policy at the time of the accident were Hansen’s mother and stepfather. In reliance upon the policy as reflected in its own records, American Family determined that Hansen was not insured under the policy and denied coverage. Hansen filed an action against American Family asserting, among other things, a statutory bad faith claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits under C.R.S. §§ 24 10-3-1115 and -1116. The trial court ruled that the deviation in the records issued by American Family’s agent and those produced by its own underwriting department created an ambiguity in the insurance policy as to the identity of the named insured, and instructed the jury that an ambiguous contract must be construed against the insurer. The jury found that American Family had delayed or denied payment without a reasonable basis for its action. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the lienholder statements created an ambiguity.
The Supreme Court held that because the insurance contract unambiguously named Hansen’s mother and stepfather as the insureds at the time of the accident, the trial court and Court of Appeals erred in relying on extrinsic evidence to find an ambiguity in the insurance contract. Accordingly, American Family’s denial of Hansen’s claim in reliance on the unambiguous insurance contract was reasonable, and American Family cannot be held liable under C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116 for statutory bad faith. The judgment was reversed.

References: v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 § 10
 § 10
 § 10
 § 10
 v. 
 v. 
 § 13
 v. 
 v. 
 § 10
 § 10
 v. 
 § 10
 v.