Patterson Ripplinger, P.C.

July – 2018

July 30, 2018

On July 23, 2018, Kevin G. Ripplinger and Brian D. Kennedy tried the case of Julie Weber v. Keyan Pesaran, Nahid Pesaran, and Ahmad Pesaran in Boulder County District Court in front of the Honorable Thomas F. Mulvahill.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEYS:
Alan C. Shafner
Allie D. Shafner
Law Office of Alan C. Shafner, P.C.
5350 South Roslyn Street, Ste. 460
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Sean T. Olson
Olson Law Firm, L.L.C.
2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 117
Denver, CO 80205

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS:

Kevin G. Ripplinger, Esq.
Brian D. Kennedy, Esq.
Frank Patterson & Associates, P.C.
5613 DTC Parkway, Suite 400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111

Andrew A. Scott, Esq.
White and Steele, P.C.
Dominion Towers, North Tower
600 17th Street, Suite 600N
Denver, CO 80202-5406

TYPE OF CLAIMS: Wrongful Death (Negligence) claim against Defendant Keyan Pesaran, Family Car Doctrine claim against Defendants Nahid Pesaran and Ahmad Pesaran.

DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF ACCIDENT OR OCCURRENCE: December 6, 2015, near mile marker 123 on Colorado Highway 40 in Routt County, Colorado.

DESCRIPTION OF CASE: Plaintiff’s daughter, Nicole Weber, Keyan Pesaran and a mutual friend, Shannon Cook, were returning to Boulder from Steamboat, Colorado. Nicole Weber was a passenger in a Jeep Grand Cherokee being driven by Keyan Pesaran. The previous night (and early morning), Nicole Weber, Shannon Cook and Keyan Pesaran had attended a party. Keyan Pesaran used drugs and alcohol during or after the party. The morning after the party, Keyan Pesaran also took Adderall or Vyvanse. During the drive back to Boulder, Keyan Pesaran fell asleep or lost consciousness, and the Jeep left the road, rolling several times. Keyan Pesaran and Shannon Cook were injured in the accident, and Nicole Weber was killed.

Nahid and Ahmad Pesaran are Keyan Pesaran’s parents. They purchased the Jeep for Keyan Pesaran several years before the accident. Nahid Pesaran was the registered owner of the Jeep, and Nahid and Ahmad Pesaran covered most of Keyan Pesaran’s expenses. Keyan Pesaran was a college student at the time of the collision and had an apartment separate from his parents’ home.

Plaintiff asserted a wrongful death claim against Keyan Pesaran and a family car claim against Nahid and Ahmad Pesaran.

INJURIES AND/OR DAMAGES ALLEGED: Plaintiffs adult daughter, Nicole Weber, was killed in a car accident. Plaintiff claimed emotional distress, suffering, inconvenience and loss of quality of life as the result of the death of her daughter.

FINAL DEMAND BEFORE TRIAL: $930,000

FINAL OFFER BEFORE TRIAL: $300,000 from all defendants jointly.

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESSES: Daniel Anderson, Colorado Bureau of Investigation Forensic Services Division, as to blood test results concerning Keyan Pesaran. Ken Kulig, M.D., toxicologist, as to effects of substances consumed by Keyan Pesaran.

DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESSES: None.

VERDICT: For the plaintiff and against Defendant Pesaran on the Wrongful Death (negligence) claim. The jury determined that Plaintiff’s damages were $1,500,000. For Defendants Nahid Pesaran and Ahmad Pesaran and against the plaintiff on the Family Car claim.

OTHER COMMENTS: Plaintiff petitioned the court for a determination that the death of Nicole Weber constitutes a felonious killing and the court granted that motion.

April – 2018

June 4, 2018

On April 30, 2018, Brian D. Kennedy tried and won case number 2017CV30697 in front of the Honorable Martin F. Egelhoff, in a three-day jury trial in Denver District Court.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant attacked him without warning or provocation while he was walking down Larimer Street near a nightclub called the Retro Room, punching Plaintiff in the back of the head and tackling him. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s allegations and claimed that Plaintiff came up behind Defendant’s wife and groped her buttocks. When Defendant approached Plaintiff and began speaking to him about the incident, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff charged him and that, in the ensuing scuffle, Plaintiff fell to the ground, injuring himself.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Michael L. Glaser, Law Office of Michael L. Glaser, LLC

TYPE OF CLAIMS: Assault, Battery, and Outrageous Conduct.

DIRECTED VERDICTS: The Court directed verdicts in favor of the Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and on all of Plaintiff’s claims for economic damages.

INJURIES AND/OR DAMAGES ALLEGED: Facial bruising, abrasions and laceration, corneal abrasion, concussion, post-concussive syndrome, depression, anxiety, PTSD, headaches, tinnitus, panic attacks, and ED. Plaintiff also claimed to have wage loss from missed work as well as diminished earning capacity because of his inability to continue a career in the Air force.

SPECIALS: $24,000 in medical expenses, $1,700 in past wage loss and an estimated $750,000 in future income loss.

FINAL DEMAND BEFORE TRIAL: $395,000
FINAL OFFER BEFORE TRIAL: Statutory offer of $65,000.01

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESSES: Laur M. Birlea, M.D.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESSES: None.

VERDICT: For the defendant on the Plaintiff’s claims of battery and outrageous conduct.

OTHER COMMENTS: The Court excluded evidence of diagnoseable mental health conditions and treatment, as well as evidence of diminished earning capacity as a sanction for discovery violations. The Court also limited the testimony of Plaintiff’s physicians based upon inadequate disclosures. Defendant is seeking costs, as well as an award of attorney’s fees for discovery violations.

March – 2018

March 1, 2018

Frank Patterson argued the Fisher vs State Farm case in the Supreme Court in October 2017. He receives periodic calls from insurers asking about the status. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling, and there is no deadline to issue its ruling, but it is likely to do so by May or June.

Frank Patterson was honored with selection to the “TOP 100” in Colorado Super Lawyers 2018 following a blue ribbon review process. Frank has been listed annually in Super Lawyers for many years and has long been recognized in the legal community as one of the best trial lawyers around. Trial success followed from his earliest years in practice. It is believed he was the youngest attorney ever selected to the American Board of Trial Advocates when he was selected in the early 90’s. Congratulations Frank!

Frank Patterson was honored again by 5280 Magazine as a Top Lawyer in personal injury defense. Congratulations again, Frank!

Frank and Hillary Patterson teamed up with Frank’s wife, Robin, and Joe Buchholz to win the 2017 CDLA golf tournament. Pictured here are the happy Pattersons with the traveling trophy. Not bad for a team with a novice (Hillary) and a new hip (Robin). They hope to defend the title this year at the CDLA conference in Telluride.

February – 2018

February 28, 2018

Frank Patterson and Karl Chambers won a summary judgment motion in a declaratory relief action entitled Viking Insurance Co v. Mark Achter; Monica Achter; Little Willie J. Ortiz, II; Darrell J. Ortiz in Pueblo County, case number 2017 CV 030215. The case involved an excluded driver who was involved in the accident. Because the Complaint in the underlying bodily injury suit identified the excluded driver as the operator of the vehicle at the time of the accident, the declaratory relief action could be pursued without awaiting the conclusion of the underlying suit. The trial court agreed the exclusion was consistent with Colorado law and Viking was not obligated to defend or indemnify for the accident.

January – 2018

January 30, 2018

Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn won a defense verdict in an important bad faith “set-up” case in El Paso County with exposure of almost $10 million. The jury found for defendant State Farm on all claims after a 7-day jury trial.

Plaintiff Melanie Rountree was insured through State Farm for auto insurance liability policies totaling $1,250,000. She was 100% at fault in causing an auto accident on January 19, 2013. Rountree, while extremely intoxicated, drove her vehicle through a red light and collided with Patrick Kirchhofer’s vehicle, causing serious and permanent injuries to Mr. Kirchhofer, including partial paralysis. Ms. Rountree claimed that State Farm unreasonably failed to timely make an offer to settle, causing a judgment to be entered against Ms. Rountree in the amount of $4,102,526.05. State Farm paid its policy limits plus interest and costs after judgment was entered, leaving an unpaid judgment balance of $3,469,598.25 as of the second trial. Rountree entered into a Bashor Agreement with Kirchhofer and was represented at the bad faith trial by the same lawyers who had represented Kirchhofer. She sought the unpaid amount of the judgment, plus two times the insurance limits (a total of $2.5 million) for unreasonable delay under C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 and 1116, punitive damages of $3,469,598.25, and attorney fees. In closing, the total requested by her attorneys was $9,439,196.50, plus attorney fees in excess of $500,000.00.

State Farm provided Rountree a defense to the Kirchhofer suit and Rountree later hired personal counsel. During the underlying litigation, Kirchhofer’s attorneys sent a letter demanding a settlement offer from State Farm. The letter purposely did not say State Farm’s limits would be accepted as a full and final settlement. Rountree and her attorneys advised State Farm not to offer its policy limits because that would immediately expose Rountree’s personal assets for further negotiations. They still hoped to convince Kirchhofer’s attorneys to accept policy limits for a full release. State Farm agreed to Rountree’s request. When State Farm’s policy limits were not offered by the deadline Kirchhofer’s attorneys revoked their “demand”, claimed it was bad faith and argued State Farm was now exposed to the full damages suffered by Kirchhofer. They demanded $12 million at mediation and $27 million at the injury trial. After the injury trial Rountree entered into the Bashor Agreement, assigning her bad faith claim proceeds to Kirchhofer.

During the bad faith trial, Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn convinced the jury that State Farm never had a reasonable opportunity to settle the case for several reasons. First, it was following the request of its insured in not making the policy limits offer. Second, Kirchhofer and his lawyers had no intent to settle for the State Farm policy limits. The lawyers were trying to create a “set-up”, a way to claim bad faith and open the policy limits.

This case is important for insurers because there is a surge of “set-up” cases in Colorado as a result of the punitive provisions of C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 and 1116. This case shows that juries will consider the question whether the insurer had a reasonable chance to settle, and that set-up cases raise real doubts about the plaintiff’s intent to settle.

October – 2017

October 20, 2017

Frank Patterson made oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court on the important Fisher v State Farm case on October 18. He expects a ruling by late Spring. The Court of Appeals surprised everyone in 2015 by announcing a rule that UM/UIM carriers were required to make piecemeal payments of portions of the UM/UIM claim which were “undisputed”. Typically, these would be economic damages such as medical expenses. The Court discovered this requirement in the “Unreasonable Delay/Denial” statute which, Frank argued, makes no mention whatsoever of partial payments or even of the UM/UIM statute. In effect, the Court of Appeals created a new pay-as-you-go medical coverage like the old PIP or No-Fault system. Unfortunately, this new mandate from the Court of Appeals came with no guidelines, regulations or legislative guidance such as exist with MPC or existed under the old PIP system. The case has generated substantial claims disputes and subsequent litigation over demands for “Fisher” payments. We hope the Supreme Court reverses this unfortunate misinterpretation of Colorado statutes and reinstates the system which had worked well for almost 50 years. Frank is happy to answer questions about the case or about the current state of the law in relation to Fisher.

Colorado Supreme Court Oral Arguments

September – 2017

September 14, 2017

On September 14, 2017, The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant obtained by attorneys Frank Patterson and Hillary Patterson in the case of My Roofer, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (16CA1478; Weld County District Court, 2015CV30425). In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals ruled that decking damaged by the separate, nonfortuitous loss of ‘wear, tear, and deterioration’ was not covered by the OL (Ordinance and Law) endorsement of the State Farm policy. The court also ruled the pre-existing damaged decking did not constitute ‘undamaged’ property under the terms of the policy for purposes of coverage under the OL endorsement. Finally, the court ruled that My Roofer failed to preserve the issue of whether the Loss Settlement section of the policy required coverage for the decking under a theory that decking is an inseparable component of a roof assembly or a roof system. The court declined to rule on the unpreserved issue as the new legal theory was not unequivocally correct. Oral arguments were presented on September 6, 2017.

Colorado Court of Appeals Oral Arguments

August – 2017

August 9, 2017

In the case of Robert Stephenson v. Lindsey Heaston (2016CV031355), Hillary Patterson obtained an Order of Dismissal for Continued Violation of Discovery Obligations. This is an important victory not only because it dismissed all claims against the defendant, but also because it reflects the firm’s goals and commitment to clients to vigorously defend their interests while avoiding unnecessary and excessive litigation fees and costs.

The revised Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure aim to promote more complete disclosure and to curtail discovery costs. While dismissal is a drastic sanction, the circumstances of this litigation and the discovery violations warranted dismissal. In the Order of Dismissal, Adams County District Court Judge Moss astutely quoted the following excerpt from a timely and relevant article in the Colorado Lawyer:

“‘[T]he elephant in the living room of civil litigation is that even ‘proportionate’ litigation costs in the average case are so high [as] to be out of reach for all but the wealthiest of individuals and corporations…. Judges have some responsibility for this situation, because many of us are so resistant to enforcing the existing rules with the bite of sanctions.’ Wang & Hoffman, A Year after Significant Civil Justice Reforms in Colorado, Colorado Lawyer (Jan. 2017).

Order of Dismiss. For Cont’d Violation of Discov. Obligations. Aug. 8, 2017.

May – 2017

June 1, 2017

Karl Chambers won the case of Sentry v. Barragan, Adams County, Case No. 16CV31486 on summary judgment. This was a declaratory judgment action that we filed on behalf of Sentry Insurance seeking a declaration that there was no insurance coverage under an “operator’s policy” issued to the mother when her daughter was driving the car. The court agreed with our position and held that Sentry was not required to provide liability coverage when the daughter was involved in an accident while driving her mom’s car. You can read the order here.

April – 2017

April 4, 2017

There have been recent changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding disclosure obligations and discovery requests. Requests for disclosure or discovery must be narrowly tailored and proportional to the needs of the case. In light of these changes, Frank Patterson recently obtained a favorable Order for his client in a bad faith case precluding extensive discovery of what has come to be thought of as “institutional discovery.” The Order can be reviewed here.

In a declaratory relief action filed by the insurer for failure to cooperate after the insured entered into a Nunn Agreement, Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn obtained an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that Nunn Agreements are allowed under Colorado law and therefore, cannot be a failure to cooperate. The trial court denied the motion holding that the case law does not automatically allow for such agreements and that an insured may enter into such an agreement when the insurer has acted unreasonably or in the face of a colorable bad faith claim. This case will have significant ramifications for insurers’ ability to challenge Nunn Agreements.

Karl Chambers obtained a defense verdict in the case of Shaun Olguin v. Louis Chacon dba Louie’s Barber Shop in Boulder County. The plaintiff claimed that he was injured while receiving a haircut at Louie’s Barber Shop and developed a staph infection that required medical treatment, including surgery. Karl defended Mr. Chacon on the theory that the plaintiff was never in the barber shop on the date that he claimed, but even if he was, the staph infection was not caused by conditions at the barber shop, but rather was due to a pre-existing medical condition that plaintiff had. The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Mr. Chacon finding that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by any negligence of Mr. Chacon or Louie’s Barber Shop.