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 In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals ruled that decking damaged by the separate, nonfortuitous loss of ‘wear, tear, and deterioration’ was not covered by the OL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.
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.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Susan Cary, 2015CV30260 was tried by Franklin D. Patterson and Lindsay M. Dunn in Boulder District Court and arose from a Declaratory Relief Action filed by State Farm seeking judicial determination that Ms. Cary breached her contract and voided UM/UIM coverage. Cary filed a lawsuit against another driver following a MVA in December of 2010. The other driver and the owner of the vehicle never answered the lawsuit so Cary obtained a default against them and set a date for a court hearing to establish her damages. State Farm intervened in that lawsuit to defend its interests per Brekke. Concurrently with the intervention, State Farm was attempting to investigate her claimed injuries and damages. In February 2015, State Farm denied Cary any coverage or benefits, claiming she had refused to cooperate as required by the policy, as she did not participate in any EUOs, nor did she ever provide medical releases. In November 2015, following an undefended damages trial, a judge in the first case entered judgment in excess of $826,000 (over $1.2 Million with interest and costs) against the other driver. After the judgment entered, Cary demanded State Farm pay her the $500,000 UM/UIM policy limits from the two policies. State Farm refused to pay because of its prior denial. Against State Farm Ms. Cary claimed damages of over $1,000,000.
VERDICT: For State Farm on all claims. State Farm is seeking costs in excess of $85,000.
Katie Vogt vs American Family Mutual Ins. Co., 2015CV031731 tried by Franklin D. Patterson and Lindsay M. Dunn in Denver District Court was a case that arose from a condominium fire in November of 2014. Plaintiff claimed her insurance company, American Family, failed to pay all the benefits to which she was entitled. She claimed American Family wrongfully concluded the HOA’s insurance company, Scottsdale, was primary for all Coverage A damages, including to the interior of her condo unit. Am Fam then forced her to pursue Scottsdale even though she was not an insured under that policy. Plaintiff made claims for breach of contract, unreasonable delay, and bad faith breach of contract. American Family denies it acted unreasonably or in bad faith. American Family agreed the fire damaged both her property and that of the Homeowners Association, but that the Declarations and Covenants of the HOA required the association’s policy to be primary and to cover all damages, both interior and exterior. American Family claimed that any delays were caused by the Homeowners Association, its property manager and its insurance company, Scottsdale Insurance, all of whom obstructed efforts to coordinate benefits and repairs because they were upset Ms. Vogt had negligently started the fire in violation of HOA regulations. Finally, American Family claims that Plaintiff has failed to take steps herself to resolve the issues of coordination or to get repairs done after checks were issued.
VERDICT: For Defendant on all claims
Kevin Ripplinger tried and won the case of Campanini v. State Farm in a 3 day UIM trial in Arapahoe County District Court. Plaintiff was involved in a minor rear-end accident while yielding to get on 225 at Parker. Plaintiff was employed as a pharmaceutical representative with Eli Lilly at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued the tortfeasor, Liberty Mutual (UIM carrier for Eli Lilly) and State Farm (Plaintiff personal liability carrier). Tortfeasor and Liberty Mutual settled out before trial for limits of $50,000 each. Plaintiff had an additional $100,000 on UIM with State Farm. Plaintiff claimed a permanent low back injury. Plaintiff had preexisting back problem but claimed they resolved several months prior to the accident and that she was pain free. Causation and damages were in dispute. Jury determined Plaintiff had injuries and damages but that they were not caused by the accident. The jury returned a verdict for the defense. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial Denied.
Angela A. Stevens v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, dba State Farm Insurance, and aka Frontier Division of the State Farm Fire & Casualty Company of Bloomington, Illinois, 2014CV030309 was tried in Larimer County District Court by Franklin D. Patterson and Lindsay M. Dunn. This case arose from a MVA when the at-fault driver failed to yield while turning, resulting in a T-Bone collision, which resulted in Plaintiff settling liability claims at $50,000 limits. She demanded UIM limits, and State Farm concluded she had been adequately compensated by the BI limits.
Plaintiff brought 3 claims for relief: willful and wanton breach of contract, unreasonable delay/denial, and bad faith. State Farm denied it acted improperly, and asserted an affirmative defense of failure to cooperate. The failures to cooperate included failure to timely respond to State Farm’s requests for information, concealment of relevant and important records, and failure to produce authorizations to allow State Farm to obtain records. State Farm further contended Plaintiff’s treatment had been excessive and unreasonable, and that the great bulk of her medical complaints are due to pre-existing conditions or caused by other injury-producing incidents both before and after this incident. State Farm also contested the reasonableness and cost of the medical care Plaintiff received. In closing, Plaintiff’s attorney asked for $700,000 in non-economic and exacerbated disability damages.
VERDICT: For Defendant on all claims.
Defendant’s costs exceed $40,000. The jury verdict indicated Plaintiff’s total damages were $53,000 above the amount of the BI coverage. However, Plaintiff decided to pursue a willful and wanton breach of contract claim instead of a simple breach of contract claim. The jury was only instructed on the elements of willful and wanton breach and the verdict was returned in favor of Defendant.