Opinion ID: 2136
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fincher I

Text: On September 21, 2000, Fincher filed an amended putative class action complaint in Colorado state court alleging, inter alia, Prudential’s offer of APIP benefits violated CAARA because it capped those benefits at $150,000 whereas, at the time the policy was issued, CAARA did not permit a cap lower than $200,000. Fincher sought reformation of the policy to provide unlimited APIP benefits and also asserted claims for, inter alia, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and willful and wanton breach of contract. Prudential removed the case to federal court and filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, concluding Colorado law did not require insurers to offer APIP coverage to pedestrians at the time of the accident. In doing so, it determined Brennan v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 550, 554 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998), which held APIP coverage must include pedestrians, was to be applied prospectively only. We reversed, holding Fincher was entitled to reformation under Brennan based on our decision in Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2003) (Clark I), which held Brennan applied retroactively. See Fincher I, 76 Fed. Appx. at 921-22. We rejected Prudential’s argument that reformation was not warranted because the record demonstrated the insured would not have purchased extra coverage had it been 4 The factual and procedural history of this case are set forth in our previous decision, Fincher I, 76 Fed. Appx. at 918-19. We recite only those facts essential to our decision here. -3- offered. Id. Relying on Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 940 P.2d 987 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996), we held the subjective intent of the insured was irrelevant to the question of whether reformation was warranted. Id. We remanded the case to the district court to determine the effective date of reformation and noted the court’s decision regarding the date of reformation would determine the viability of Fincher’s remaining claims. Id. at 922-23. We also instructed the court to consider Fincher’s motion for class certification.5 Id. at 923.