Court Opinion

ID: 9543895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:16.572836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:24.504694
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice VOLLACK
dissenting:
The majority holds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it invoked C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) to relieve the McMillans of a prior judgment based upon our decision in Cung La v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 830 P.2d 1007 (Colo.1992). The majority also holds that Stephanie McMillan, a motorist who was intentionally shot by another motorist, may recover for her injuries under the provisions of her uninsured motorist coverage. I dissent because I believe that the McMillans were not entitled to relief under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5). Furthermore, I dissent because I disagree with the holding in Cung La and believe that injuries stemming from an intentional shooting are not covered by an injured motorist’s uninsured motorist policy.
I.
The majority decision sufficiently sets forth the facts of this case. C.R.C.P. 60(b) provides in part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: ... (5) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
In addressing the application of C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5), we have explained:
Rule 60 also contains a residuary clause which allows relief from judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment,” in addition to those specifically enumerated in other subsections of the rule. However, even the expansive “any other reason” language has been narrowly interpreted so as to avoid undercutting the preferred rule of finality of judgments. Rule 60 is not a substitute for appeal, but instead is meant to provide relief in the interests of justice in extraordinary circumstances.
Cavanaugh v. State Dep’t of Social Servs., 644 P.2d 1, 5 (Colo.1982) (citations omitted and emphasis added). For this reason, C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) has been construed narrowly and is to be applied only in “extraordinary circumstances” and “extreme situations.” Cavanaugh, 644 P.2d at 5; Canton Oil Corp. v. District Court, 731 P.2d 687, 694 (Colo.1987). As these cases suggest, C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) is an emergency measure used to vacate judgments upon the happening of some unforeseen event that suddenly renders enforcement of a judgment unfair.
Extraordinary circumstances under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) include only those rare situations where new facts or information come to light that cast serious doubt on the fairness of a prior judgment. See Canton Oil, 731 P.2d at 694 (holding that grievous jury misconduct raising sensitive issues of religion is an extraordinary circumstance); Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy Dist. v. O’Neill, 817 P.2d 500 (Colo.1991) (adopting *796C.R.C.P. 59(d)(4) three-part test to weigh newly discovered evidence under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5)).
Courts have been reluctant to apply C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6),1 its federal counterpart, to recognize and remedy judgments cast into doubt by subsequent changes in the law because the law is presumed to be in a constant state of revision and change. See E.B. Jones Constr. Co. v. City and County of Denver, 717 P.2d 1009, 1013 (Colo.App.1986) (stating that erroneous application of law does not give rise to extraordinary circumstances under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5)); Elgin Nat’l Watch Co. v. Barrett, 213 F.2d 776 (5th Cir.1954) (holding that subsequent change in law does not render prior judgment invalid under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6)).
Finally, the failure to timely file an appeal is not a sufficient ground to justify extraordinary relief from judgment under C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). Acker-mann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193,197-98, 71 S.Ct. 209, 211-12, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Cavanaugh, 644 P.2d at 5.
In my view, the trial court abused its discretion when it used C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) to vacate its prior judgment. The McMillans never appealed the trial court’s order, but instead chose to await our decision in Cung La before taking further action. While the McMillans’ inaction may have been convenient, it does not represent the type of extraordinary circumstances that C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) is designed to remedy. See Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. at 198, 71 S.Ct. at 211-12 (holding that knowing failure to appeal is not excused by Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) even though companion case was appealed successfully).
Our decision in Cung La did not represent an unexpected event that suddenly rendered the trial court’s original order unfair. On the contrary, the McMillans were well aware of this court’s grant of certiorari in Cung La, alerted the trial court of this fact, and waited for more than a year until we announced our decision. The McMillans knew and expected that an event would occur that might affect the trial court’s ruling. In short, the McMil-lans improperly used C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) as a substitute for filing an appeal. See Cavanaugh, 644 P.2d at 5.
Under its three-part holding, the majority states that if a trial court is faced with a matter of first impression and both parties agree that a concurrent case set for appeal is dispositive, “a trial court may timely reconsider a ruling previously issued in a ease before it.” Maj. op. at 791. On the contrary, a trial court has no authority to reconsider a prior ruling after it has entered a final judgment. The McMillans should have appealed to preserve their rights. Additionally, the notice alerting the trial court of our grant of certiorari in Cung La is not a proper pleading to reopen jurisdiction in the trial court to reconsider its original entry of final judgment.
Once the trial court entered a final order, the McMillans were obligated to appeal within forty-five days as required by C.A.R. 4(a). While I recognize the awkward timing this case posed in relation to Cung La, I refuse to read C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) loosely to excuse the McMillans’ procedural neglect when they were fully aware of our pending decision in Cung La. I therefore believe that the McMillans’ C.R.C.P. 60(b)(5) motion should have been dismissed.
II.
Although I believe that the McMillans’ cause of action should be dismissed, I am compelled to reiterate the dissent articulated by Chief Justice Rovira, which I joined, in Cung La, 830 P.2d at 1013-19 (Rovira, C.J., dissenting). In my view, injuries caused by a gunshot fired from one ear towards another are not sufficiently causally related to the operation of an automobile to permit coverage under the McMillans’ uninsured motorist coverage. See Cung La, 830 P.2d at 1016-19 (Rovira, C.J., dissenting). Accordingly, I dissent.