frank patterson & associates – Patterson Ripplinger, P.C.

March – 2019

March 29, 2019

Frank Patterson successfully defeated a bad faith set-up case in the trial of Lloyd Sidley vs Roshan Dulal and State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co. Trial was before Judge Frederick Martinez in Arapahoe County. Plaintiff was severely injured in a motorcycle accident, with medical expenses in excess of $1 Million. The defendant had only $25,000 in liability coverage. Plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to State Farm saying plaintiff would accept the limits in settlement of the claim if State Farm satisfied 3 conditions – 1) supply proof of the liability limits; 2) perform due diligence in determining whether there was any other liability insurance; and 3) provide an affidavit, which he provided, signed by the insured which indicated the defendant’s assets. State Farm did all three and offered its limits. Plaintiff filed suit against State Farm’s insured, arguing that State Farm failed to satisfactorily complete the three conditions, thus exposing the insured to a large excess verdict and making State Farm liable for the excess. The trial court allowed State Farm to intervene and bifurcated the trial to determine first whether a settlement had been reached. The jury quickly returned a verdict that State Farm had properly completed the conditions and that there was indeed a settlement for $25,000.

This case is a good example of a situation with large damages and little insurance, where the plaintiff’s attorney was trying to set-up the insurance company to be on the hook for all the damages. It was clear that counsel never had any real intent to settle. He was going to argue that the insurer failed to satisfy the conditions no matter what it had done. We were fortunate in this case that our insurance client was allowed to intervene in the underlying injury suit rather than having to wait until a sizable judgment was entered against its insured and then fight it in separate litigation.

December – 2018

December 3, 2018

Karl Chambers tried the case of Grace Stean and Adam Stevens v. Margaret Molloy in a four day trial in Arapahoe District Court.

This action arose out of a motor vehicle accident involving plaintiff’s wife, Grace Stean, and our client, Margaret Molloy. Ms. Stean claimed that she was injured in the accident, including an alleged mild traumatic brain injury and a cervical facet injury. Plaintiff, Adam Stevens, was not involved in the accident, but claimed that he suffered a loss of consortium due to his wife’s injuries. We admitted that defendant negligently caused the accident, but challenged the injuries and damages claimed by Ms. Stean and her husband. Ms. Stean settled her claim prior to trial and Mr. Stevens elected to litigate his loss of consortium claim. Our defense was that he did not suffer a loss of consortium. The jury agreed and returned a defense verdict finding that Mr. Stevens did not suffer a loss of consortium.

September – 2018

September 28, 2018

Karl Chambers gave oral arguments in the case Bailey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. In a published opinion, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of our client, State Farm. The plaintiff sued the party that caused the accident along with State Farm seeking underinsured motorist benefits from State Farm claiming that his damages exceeded the liability policy limits of the at-fault party. Shortly before trial the liability insurer for the at-fault party agreed to pay the judgment regardless of the amount. The jury returned a verdict for an amount greater than the at-fault party’s policy limits and his insurer paid the full amount of the judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the full amount of the judgment was paid by the liability insurer the plaintiff argued that he was still entitled to $100,000 in UIM coverage. We argued that there was no UIM coverage because the entire judgment had been paid by the liability insurer. The trial court agreed with us and entered a judgment only against the at-fault party. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the trial court’s judgment and the Court of Appeals also agreed with us that no UIM benefits were owed because the entire judgment was paid by the liability insurer.

Colorado Court of Appeals Oral Arguments

August – 2018

August 3, 2018

Patrice Fujisaki Sauter v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

On August 1, 2018, attorneys Frank Patterson and Hillary Patterson obtained a directed verdict for the defendant in the case of Patrice Fujisaki Sauter. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Denver County District Court, 2017CV33275).

Plaintiff Patrice Fujisaki Sauter is the daughter of the deceased homeowner and State Farm insured, Rose Fujisaki. Plaintiff alleged a hail and wind storm caused damage to Rose Fujisaki’s home and lightweight concrete tile roof. State Farm determined the concrete tile roof was not damaged in the hail/wind event, but had sustained unrelated damage from improper installation and footfall. State Farm issued payment to Rose Fujisaki for other damage to the property caused by hail/wind. Plaintiff lived in the home, but did not own the home, was not the named insured on the State Farm policy, and was not the personal representative of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki. Plaintiff brought a first-party claim in her own right alleging breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116.

Plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract and common law bad faith were dismissed on summary judgment because Plaintiff was not the homeowner or policyholder, and therefore had no standing to pursue those claims. The Court denied summary judgment on the claim of unreasonable delay/denial, ruling a fact question remained as to whether Plaintiff had authority to assert the claim on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki. Plaintiff never moved to amend the pleadings and presented no other timely evidence of her standing to assert claims on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki.

At trial, The Honorable Judge Martin F. Egelhoff ruled on State Farm’s oral motion for directed verdict after Plaintiff rested her case-in-chief. Judge Egelhoff held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Plaintiff had not presented any evidence that she had legal authority to pursue a claim of unreasonable delay/denial under C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki. Therefore, Plaintiff lacked standing and her remaining claim was dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 50.

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.

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.

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.

December

December 19, 2016

Hillary Patterson obtained summary judgment for a client that paid work loss PIP benefits to its insured following a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Michigan (State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Timika Thomas, 16CV30578). The insured subsequently recovered duplicate Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, but refused to reimburse the insurer pursuant to Michigan law. This case involved the application of Colorado’s choice of law principles, Michigan insurance law, and Michigan law governing breach of contract.

August

September 14, 2016

Todd Dieterich tried and won the case of Aaron Phillips v. Kyle Smoker, et. al. in a 5 day trial in Denver County District Court. This case stemmed from a multi-vehicle accident on the ramp exiting I-25 North onto I-70 East. As both parties rounded that turn approaching I-70 East, they encountered a pickup truck who had spun out and was sitting parallel to oncoming vehicles blocking traffic. Both parties were behind a third vehicle who braked to avoid the stopped vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was tailgating that vehicle, had insufficient time to stop, and swerved into his lane, striking him and causing him to lose traction and strike the parallel vehicle, strike the cement median and ultimately come to rest in the I-25 South on-ramp where he was struck by an oncoming eighteen wheeler. Defendant alleges that he did change lanes to avoid the vehicle in front of him, but he did so in a safe and prudent manner, and it was the Plaintiff’s excessive speed that caused him to strike the Defendant and the resulting collisions. Plaintiff made claims for neck, back, and shoulder injuries. These injuries allegedly required rhizotomy and facet injections for an indefinite period of time resulting in $1,953,00 in future treatment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.