Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Hasan v. AIG Property Casualty Co.

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 8, 2018

MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., and SEEME G. HASAN, Plaintiffs,
AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant.


          Mark L. Carman, United States Magistrate Judge

         This case comes before the court on the referred motion of Plaintiffs Malik M. Hasan. M.D. and Seeme G. Hasan ("Plaintiffs") to amend their complaint. Doc. 41 (referred to hereafter as the "Motion"). Defendant AIG Property Casualty Company ("AIG") opposes. Doe. 43. Plaintiffs have replied in support of their motion. Doc. 44. For the reasons that follow, the court RECOMMENDS denying the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs are suing their insurer Defendant regarding Plaintiffs' claim under a "Private Collections Insurance Policy." Under the Final Pretrial Order entered December 12, 2017.

Plaintiffs assert[] claims for (i) breach of express contract, (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty, (iii) breaches of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (iv) tort of bad faith, and (v) violation of C.R.S. §10-3-1115. Plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory damages, special damages, consequential damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs of suit."

Doc. 38 (Final Pretrial Order) at 4. The deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions have passed. The case is set for a five-day jury trial before Judge Raymond P. Moore to begin October 1, 2018. Doc. 36 (Order Setting Case For Trial). Judge Moore will hold a trial preparation conference on August 31, 2018, and 60 days prior to that conference (July 2, 2018), motions to exclude expert testimony are due. Id. Currently, neither side has designated expert witnesses. Final Pretrial Order at 14.

         On January 29, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to file amended complaint. Doc. 41. They assert

[t]he litigation dispute arises out of substantial losses (in excess of $1.8 million) sustained by the Hasans in connection with the Hasans' purchases of fine wine from Premier Cm, a wine merchant that operated from Berkeley, California. When Premier Cru failed to deliver substantial wines that had been ordered and paid for in full, the Hasans timely lodged claims under their AIG Private Collection Insurance Policy (the "Policy"), and their AIG homeowners insurance policy. AIG denied all coverage under the Policy, and paid only a modest amount under the homeowners coverage ($62, 500).

         Motion at 1-2. Plaintiffs have not, nor propose to bring a claim for breach of the referenced homeowners policy; the parties' exhibit lists reflect they have settled Plaintiffs' claim under the homeowners policy outside this case. See Final Pretrial Order at Docs. 38-1, 38-2 (PL Ex. 56; Def. Ex. A-4).

         Plaintiffs seek to amend their complaint regarding Defendant's nonrenewal of the homeowners and Private Collections[1] policies with Plaintiffs.

On or about January 11, 2018, AIG prepared Notices of Nonrenewal of the Hasans' coverage under the AIG insurance policies (these were received by the Hasans several days later). The AIG insurance coverage for the Hasans will expire on February 18, 2018. The non-renewal will cause the Hasans to incur substantial additional losses associated with replacing (if possible) the insurance coverage that had been provided by AIG.

Motion at 2 ¶ 6. Plaintiffs attach the nonrenewal notices (doc. 41-2, hereafter the "Notices"); the documents state "[t]he reason for nonrenewal is due to losses and multiple late payments.” Id. Each Notice identifies the dates that Defendant sent late payment notices and paid losses or expenses on the respective policies.

         Plaintiffs attach their proposed amended complaint (doc. 41-1), but do not provide a redline version.[2] They apparently propose to add new Paragraphs 33-35, alleging AIG's decision to not renew their policies, and a new fifth claim for relief for the "tort of bad faith nonrenewal of insurance." Doc. 41-1 at 12. Plaintiffs summarize the new claim:

The decision not to renew the Hasans' insurance coverage was plainly retaliatory, and further evidences AIG's bad faith handling of the Hasans' insurance claims. Notices of Nonrenewal specifically identify and link: (i) the loss and expenses paid under the fraud endorsement to the AIG homeowners' policy ($72, 119.60), and (ii) the open loss expenses paid to defend the Hasans' claim under the Policy ($158, 812.82), as bases for the nonrenewal decision.

Motion at 2-3 ¶ 7.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Legal Standards ...

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.