Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Desizlets v. Geico Casualty Co.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

December 19, 2017

BRIAN ROD DESIZLETS, Plaintiff,
v.
GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Geico Casualty Company's Motion for Summary Judge, wherein Defendant argues that Plaintiff Brian Rod Disizelets was not insured at the time of his motor vehicle collision on February 25, 2013. (Doc. # 68.) Defendant requests that the Court therefore enter summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. (Id.) Because genuine issues of material fact govern this dispute, the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. UNDERLYING FACTS

         The relevant facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, are as follows. See Allen v. Muskogee, 119 F.3d 837, 839-40 (10th Cir. 1997) (reviewing court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party). On December 4, 2012, Defendant issued Plaintiff a Colorado Family Automobile Insurance Policy, No. 4289363757. (Doc. # 4 at 2.) Defendant cancelled Plaintiff's insurance policy on January 21, 2013, for non-payment. (Id.; Doc. # 6 at 3.)

         According to Plaintiff, he called Defendant at 9:37 a.m. on February 25, 2013, in order to reinstate his policy and made a payment to Defendant through its automated line. (Doc. # 4 at 2.)

         That same day, February 25, 2013, Plaintiff was involved in a three-car motor vehicle collision at approximately 4:00pm in Longmont, Colorado. (Id.) Plaintiff contends that his insurance policy from Defendant was in “full force and effect” at the date and time of the collision. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff called Defendant at 4:37 p.m. to confirm that his payment made in the morning had been received. (Id. at 2.)

         Defendant has denied Plaintiff's claims arising from the February 25, 2013 motor vehicle accident. (Id. at 3.) On February 27, 2013, Defendant sent a letter to American Family Insurance Company, the insurance company of the other motorist involved in that accident, stating that Plaintiff was uninsured at the time of the collision. (Id. at 2.)

         On February 3, 2016, American Family Insurance Company filed a suit against Plaintiff in Boulder County District Court, No. 16-cv-030131, seeking to recover the amounts it had paid for property damage and bodily injuries resulting from the accident. (Id.) On April 19, 2016, the Boulder County District Court entered default judgment against Plaintiff in the amount of $29, 373.57. (Id.)

         Plaintiff then retained counsel. On August 22, 2016, Defendant informed Plaintiff's counsel that its position was that Plaintiff did not have insurance coverage at the time of the February 25, 2013, collision. (Id. at 3.)

         B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND PLAINTIFF'S STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS TWO CLAIMS

         Plaintiff filed the action now before the Court in Boulder County District Court on December 2, 2016, asserting six claims against Defendant: (1) breach of contract; (2) common law bad faith breach of contract; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; (4) violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act[1]; (5) statutory bad faith, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115-16; and (6) respondeat superior/vicarious liability. (Doc. # 4 at 3-7.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on January 4, 2017. (Doc. # 1-8.) On November 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss Two Claims, in which the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim (Claim 3) and his respondeat superior/vicarious liability claim (Claim 6). (Doc. # 82.) The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss these two claims on December 19, 2017. (Doc. # 88.)

         On October 27, 2017, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims. (Doc. # 68.) Plaintiff responded to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on November 17, 2017. (Doc. # 83.) Defendant filed a reply brief on December 1, 2017. (Doc. # 84.) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is thus ripe for the Court's review.

         II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.