United States District Court, D. Colorado
WENDY L. PEDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER
LEWIS
T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
This
matter is before me on Plaintiff's Motion for a New
Trial, filed by Wendy L. Peden pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(a)(1)(A). [Doc #195]
Defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
(“State Farm”) has filed its Response [Doc #197]
and Plaintiff filed her reply. [Doc # 200] Oral arguments
would not materially assist me in my determination. After
consideration of the parties' briefs, for the reason
stated, I DENY Plaintiff's motion seeking a new trial.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff
and three other passengers were injured when the 1962
Volkswagen van they were riding in was involved in a single
car accident. Plaintiff's claims against the at-fault
driver for bodily liability coverage were settled by State
Farm. Because Plaintiff believed that the amount of her
compensatory damages exceeded the liability settlement, she
submitted a claim to State Farm pursuant to the available
under-insured motorists (“UIM”) coverage of $350,
000, by sending State Farm a demand letter dated December 30,
2013. State Farm evaluated her UIM claim, and sent a response
on February 27, 2014, indicating that it concluded that
Plaintiff was fully compensated for the injuries and damages
she sustained via the liability benefits previously paid.
Following State Farm's decision that she was not entitled
to UIM benefits in February of 2014, Plaintiff filed this
lawsuit asserting claims for: 1) Breach of the Insurance
Contract; 2) Common Law Breach of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing; and 3) Violation of Colorado Revised Statutes
§10-3-1115 and §10-3-1116 (Unreasonable Delay or
Denial of Benefits).
After
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, State Farm re-evaluated
Plaintiff's UIM claim and made an offer of settlement in
the amount of $179, 660.01 on February 27, 2015. Then, on May
15, 2015, State Farm paid Plaintiff the remaining $170,
339.99. As such, State Farm paid Plaintiff $350, 000, which
constituted the full amount of the UIM benefits available.
On
September 9, 2015, I granted State Farm's Motion for
Summary Judgment. [Doc #72] Plaintiff appealed and, on
November 15, 2016, the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Peden v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 841 F.3d
887 (2016). The Tenth Circuit ruled that genuine issues of
material facts existed as to whether State Farm adequately
investigated whether Plaintiff knew that the at-fault driver
was drunk and planning to drive (assumed the risk), and
whether State Farm reasonably investigated the damages
Plaintiff could obtain against the at- fault driver
(adequately investigated his liability to her). Id.
at 891-92. The Tenth Circuit also indicated that a genuine
issue of material fact existed as to “the
reasonableness of State Farm's initial refusal to pay
anything for future non-economic damages or future wage
loss.” Id. at 894.
Following
remand, I dismissed Plaintiff's Breach of Contract claim
on April 20, 2017. [Doc #96] And, on November 6, 2017, I
dismissed Plaintiff's Bad Faith Breach of Contract Claim
upon her Stipulation for Dismissal. [Doc #120] As a result,
Plaintiff's remaining claim for Unreasonable Delay or
Denial of Benefits, in violation of §10-3-1115 and
§10-3-1116, was tried to a jury starting on October 22,
2018.
At
trial Plaintiff argued that State Farm unreasonably denied or
delayed paying her the UIM benefits that were available and
owed to her. The jury was instructed that for Ms. Peden to
recover, it must find one or both of the following was proved
by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. State Farm denied payment of UIM benefits to Ms. Peden and
that denial of payment was without a reasonable basis; or
2. State Farm delayed payment of UIM benefits to Ms. Peden
and that delay of payment was without a reasonable basis.
As a
result, the Special Verdict Form provided to the jury asked
them to determine: 1) whether State Farm denied payment to
Plaintiff of any part of her covered UIM benefits (and, if
so, was that denial of payment without a reasonable basis)
and 2) whether State Farm delayed payment to Plaintiff of any
part of her covered UIM benefits (and, if so, was that delay
of payment without a reasonable basis). [Doc #185] After
deliberation, the jury found that State Farm did not deny or
delay payment to Plaintiff of any part of her UIM benefits
and, as such, the jury did not reach the question of whether
the denial or delay of payment was with or without a
reasonable basis. [Doc #191] I subsequently entered final
judgment in favor of State Farm on October 29, 2018. [Doc
#192]
Plaintiff
has now filed this Motion for New Trial in which she claims
that the jury's factual determination that State Farm
neither denied nor delayed paying Plaintiff any part of her
UIM benefits was irreconcilable with the weight of the
evidence presented at trial. Plaintiff argues that while the
reasonableness of State Farm's payments was a
determination that was subject to dispute, the threshold
questions of whether State Farm either denied or delayed
paying Plaintiff was “decidedly against the weight of
the evidence.” As a result, Plaintiff argues that she
is entitled to a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(a)(1)(A). [Doc #195]
State
Farm, in response, argues that the evidence presented at
trial, although often disputed, was sufficient to allow the
jury to conclude that State Farm's claims handling did
not constitute either a delay or denial of payment to
Plaintiff of her covered UIM benefits.
II.
...