United States District Court, D. Colorado
MALIK M. HASAN, M.D., and SEEME G. HASAN, Plaintiffs,
AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
L. Carman, United States Magistrate Judge
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
are suing their insurer Defendant regarding Plaintiffs'
claim under a "Private Collections Insurance
Policy." Under the Final Pretrial Order entered December
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.
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,
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.
seek to amend their complaint regarding Defendant's
nonrenewal of the homeowners and Private
Collections 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
attach their proposed amended complaint (doc. 41-1), but do
not provide a redline version. 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.
Legal Standards ...