Opinion ID: 166884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reformation only as to pedestrians

Text: 48 Finally, Mr. Clark maintains that the district court erred because it reformed the Madrid policy only to include extended PIP benefits for pedestrians. He contends that reformation instead should have applied to all categories of eligible insured persons under subsection 707(1), including the named insureds, resident relatives, passengers occupying the vehicle with the insured's consent, and pedestrians injured by the covered vehicle. Mr. Clark offers this argument as he intends to bring a class action on behalf of additional groups of claimants. 49 In Clark I, our remand concerned the benefits sought by Mr. Clark as a pedestrian. We instructed the district court to determine the amount of extended PIP benefits, if any, to which Clark is entitled. 319 F.3d at 1241 (emphasis added). We explained that [t]he holdings in Brennan and Thompson mandate that the Madrid policy be reformed to include extended PIP benefits and that pedestrians, like Clark, must be included in the class of beneficiaries eligible to receive those benefits. Id. at 1242 (citing Brennan, 961 P.2d at 554; Thompson, 940 P.2d at 990). On remand, the district court followed our instructions, appropriately noting that only Mr. Clark's case and the Madrid policy are presently before [it]. Clark II, 292 F.Supp.2d at 1266. 50 Significantly, the Colorado Court of Appeals reasoned in Brennan that an insurer must offer extended PIP coverage not only to pedestrians but to all categories of persons listed in subsection 707(1). 961 P.2d at 553. In addition, we stated in an unpublished opinion that  Thompson's holding regarding reformation of [a statutorily deficient] insurance contract is, in our view, applicable to any situation where an insurer has failed to comply with the [CAARA] and offer an insured the extended coverage set forth therein. Fincher v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 76 Fed.Appx. 917, 922 (10th Cir.2003). However, neither our decision in Clark I nor the district court's order in Clark II determined the benefits to which non-pedestrians are entitled. Reformation of the Madrid policy only for pedestrians neither restricts reformation of other State Farm policies to provide extended PIP benefits for eligible injured persons under subsection 707(1) nor limits the class of eligible injured persons for which Mr. Clark may be named class representative upon subsequent class certification proceedings. We need not address Mr. Clark's standing to raise claims for other injured persons to resolve the controversy before us. 51 Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it limited reformation of the Madrid policy to pedestrians.