United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT
William J. Martínez United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Brenda Sandoval (“Plaintiff” or
“Sandoval”) sued her insurance provider Defendant
Unum Life Insurance Company of America
(“Defendant” or “Unum”) after Unum
terminated the benefits that she received under a long-term
disability policy (the “Policy”). The case
proceeded to trial in September 2018. On September 28, 2018,
a jury returned a verdict for Sandoval finding that she had
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Unum breached
its contract with her, and awarded her damages of $81,
244.85. (ECF No. 115.)
Post-trial,
the Court ordered the parties to address Sandoval's
request for declaratory relief regarding her eligibility for
future long-term disability benefits. (ECF No. 5 at 2-3; ECF
No. 118.) Sandoval filed a Motion for Declaratory Judgment
(the “Motion”) (ECF No. 119), which Unum opposes
(ECF No. 120). The Court then ordered supplemental briefing
on the appropriateness of injunctive relief under Rule 65.
(ECF Nos. 122, 123 & 126.) Sandoval's Motion is now
before the Court.
For the
reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part
Sandoval's request for declaratory and injunctive relief,
and directs the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of
Sandoval.
I.
ANALYSIS
Sandoval
seeks both a declaration and a permanent injunction. (ECF
Nos. 119 & 123.) Specifically, Sandoval asks the Court to
enter an order (1) finding that Sandoval is disabled under
the terms of the Policy; and (2) requiring Unum to place
Sandoval back on her Policy and pay all benefits to which
Sandoval is entitled as long as she complies with the terms
of the Policy. (Id. at 3-4.) Unum
objects.[1] (ECF Nos. 120 & 126.)
A.
Declaratory Relief
The
Declaratory Judgment Act allows a court to “declare the
rights and other legal relations of any interested party
seeking such a declaration.” 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Sandoval
seeks a declaration that she is disabled under the terms of
the contract. (ECF No. 119.) Unum argues that a declaration
is imprudent for two reasons, both of which are easily
dispatched. (ECF No. 120 at 1-2.) First, Unum argues that
declaratory judgment is inappropriate pending appeal.
Regardless of the legal merits of this position, no appeal
has been filed and thus there is no need to wait for
resolution of a hypothetical appeal to enter declaratory
judgment. Unum's second argument-that Sandoval's
request for benefits into the future is not supported by the
plain terms of the Policy-addresses the appropriateness of
injunctive relief, not declaratory relief.[2]
“Under
well settled principles, when a plaintiff brings both legal
and equitable claims in the same action, the Seventh
Amendment right to jury trial on the legal claims must be
preserved by trying those claims first (or at least
simultaneously with the equitable claims), and the jury's
findings on any common questions of fact must be applied when
the court decides the equitable claims.” Colo.
Visionary Acad. v. Medtronic, Inc., 397 F.3d 867, 875
(10th Cir. 2005). The Court must “giv[e] due effect to
any findings necessarily implicit in a general
verdict.” Id.
The
Court thus reviews the jury verdict to determine what factual
findings made by the jury bear on Sandoval's request for
declaratory relief. The jury verdict form specifically asked
if Sandoval proved “by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Defendant Unum Life Insurance Company breached its
contract with Ms. Sandoval for long term disability
benefits.” (ECF No. 115 at 1.) In her closing argument,
Sandoval requested $81, 153.46 in damages for breach of
contract through the date of the closing argument. Jury
deliberations continued into the following day, and the jury
sent a note to the Court asking “if we award the full
amount, do we add something above the $81, 153.46 to account
for today?” (ECF No. 111.) Before the Court could
respond, the jury notified the Court that it had reached a
verdict. The jury awarded Sandoval $81, 244.85, slightly more
than the amount requested by Sandoval in her closing
argument. (ECF No. 115 at 2.)
The
jury appears to have resolved factual disputes relevant here
in Sandoval's favor. As Sandoval suggests, to reach its
verdict, the jury would have had to find that Sandoval was
disabled under the Policy when Unum terminated benefits; that
Unum thus improperly terminated benefits and breached its
contract with Sandoval; and, presumably answering its own
question and awarding additional damages, that Sandoval
continued to be disabled under the Policy as of the date of
the verdict. (ECF No. 119 at 3.)
The
Court agrees, and Unum does not suggest a contrary
interpretation. See Colo. Visionary Acad., 397 F.3d
at 875. Consistent with the factual conclusions implicit in
the jury verdict, the Court finds that Sandoval was disabled
within the meaning of the Policy when Unum terminated
benefits and continued to be disabled within the meaning of
the Policy through September 28, 2018, the date of the jury
verdict, and Sandoval is thus entitled to a declaratory
judgment stating the same. See 28 U.S.C. §
2201.
B.
...