Opinion ID: 173967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: did state farm act unreasonably?

Text: Ms. Fisher also appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to State Farm on the counterclaim which she brought pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 10-3-1116(1), a statute which permits an insurance claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied [to] bring an action . . . to recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs and two times the covered benefit. (emphasis added). Ms. Fisher contends that if there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to coverage, such facts when viewed in the light most favorable to [her] create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether State Farm's conduct in delaying and denying [her] claim was unreasonable. Aplt. Br. at 27. Ms. Fisher's position is, however, untenable. The Colorado Court of Appeals has held that [i]t is reasonable for an insurer to challenge claims that are fairly debatable.  Pham v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 70 P.3d 567, 572 (Colo.App.2003) (emphasis added). And, as our previous discussion clearly indicates, the parameters of UM coverage in Colorado are fairly debatable. State Farm's decision to file a declaratory judgment action was, therefore, not unreasonable. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to State Farm on Ms. Fisher's counterclaim.