Opinion ID: 166884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Clark I

Text: 21 In August 2000, Mr. Clark brought a class-action suit in federal district court on behalf of all injured persons, covered under a State Farm policy, who were not paid extended benefits under CAARA. He maintained that reformation of the Madrid policy should include extended PIP benefits under section 710. Mr. Clark brought additional claims for (1) breach of contract for failure to pay extended PIP benefits, (2) breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, (3) willful and wanton breach of contract, and (4) deceptive trade practices. The district court reasoned that Brennan could not be applied retroactively and granted State Farm's motion to dismiss all claims. 22 On appeal, this court reversed, concluding that the district court erred in its prospective-only interpretation of Brennan. Id. at 1241. We applied the state's retroactivity standards to conclude that the Colorado Court of Appeals did not announce a new principle of law [b]ecause Brennan involved the interpretation of a statute enacted prior to the time the Madrid policy was issued. Id. at 1242. On remand, we ordered the district court to determine, through the exercise of its equitable powers, the effective date of reformation and the amount of extended PIP benefits, if any, to which Clark is entitled. Id. at 1241-43. Finally, we affirmed the dismissal of Mr. Clark's claim of deceptive trade practice and recognized that the remaining contract, tort, and statutory claims would remain viable only if the district court's effective date of reformation preceded its order of reformation.