Opinion ID: 1135155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Garnishment Proceeding

Text: The proper interpretation and enforcement of this insurance policy arose in the context of garnishment. Garnishment is a statutory proceeding whereby a plaintiff in attachment or a judgment creditor seeks to subject to his claim or judgment property of the defendant debtor in the hands of a third person or money owed by a third person to the defendant debtor. 10 Stephen W. Seifert, Colorado Creditors' RemediesDebtor's Relief § 7.94 (1990). [6] Garnishment is authorized by Rule 103 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. It can be used to aid a plaintiff in monetary recovery after a judgment. See C.R.C.P. 103 §§ 1-4. Garnishment is an appropriate context for resolving coverage issues in a third party victim insurance case. [7] See, e.g., Worchester v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 172 Colo. 352, 354-57, 473 P.2d 711, 712-14 (1970). By answer in this garnishment proceeding, Church Mutual denied coverage, and Bohrer filed a traverse placing the matter at issue. C.R.C.P. 103, section 8(b) provides that the traverse shall be set for hearing before the court. An evidentiary hearing may or may not be necessary. See Haselden Langley Constr., Inc. v. Graybar Elec. Co., 662 P.2d 1064, 1065-66 (Colo.1983) (judging that garnishor whose traverse was determined adversely by summary judgment was entitled to present evidence in support of allegations). Here, the district court, based on contractual causation principles, must make an allocation of damages determination that the jury has not made. Contractual causation analysis is different from tortious causation analysis. See Couch on Insurance, supra, § 101:41. The tort trial concerns the question of civil culpability, whereas the insurance determination deals with whether the damages sustained were a result of a risk or hazard for which the insured had coverage. Although the jury does not ordinarily allocate damages between causes of action against a person in a tort case, the need and manner of making an allocation in other contexts is a familiar aspect of our justice system. [8] For example, juries and judges in bench trials regularly separate and allocate the relative degree of fault between parties under complicated factual circumstances. See, e.g., § 13-21-111(2)(b), 5 C.R.S. (1998) (requiring the trier of fact to determine the degree of negligence of each party, expressed as a percentage so that the total damages awarded can be allocated between the responsible parties); see also § 13-21-111.5(2), 5 C.R.S. (1998). Although a jury might not be able to say with specificity or absolute certainty which item of conduct actually caused a particular injury, we instruct jurors to use your best judgment based on the evidence when uncertainty arises regarding the amount of damages to be awarded. C.J.I.-Civ.3d 5:5. On remand, Bohrer is entitled to a hearing on her traverse in accordance with C.R.C.P. 103, section 8. The district court shall determine the extent to which the compensatory damages are attributed to (1) counseling and (2) sexual misconduct. We conclude that the opportunity for an evidentiary hearing to receive expert testimony is necessary in this case on the allocation of damages issue. The parties may offer expert testimony and may cite portions of the record of the underlying tort case, for consideration by the district court in determining how the allocation between the coverage and exclusion shall be made. [9] Following the hearing, the court shall make its determination as to the proper allocation and (1) enter findings, conclusions, and a judgment against Church Mutual ordering payment out of policy proceeds for the damages ascribable to the counseling period and (2) refuse to order the payment for damages ascribable to the period of sexual misconduct.