United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
This
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Owners Insurance
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 130) and
Defendant Mr. James Stahl's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. # 129). For the following reasons, the Court grants
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and denies
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
FACTUAL HISTORY
It is
undisputed that on October 29, 2016, Defendant Mr. James
Stahl (“Stahl”) and Ms. Karen Zohar
(“Zohar”), a third party, were involved in a car
accident in Colorado on I-70 West. (Doc. # 88 at 3.) Zohar
was driving her personal vehicle and she carried $50, 000 in
bodily injury liability coverage. (Doc. # 81 at 2.) Stahl was
driving a work vehicle that was insured by Plaintiff Owners
Insurance Company (“Owners”) with a $1, 000, 000
underinsured motorist policy and a $35, 000 medical payments
coverage policy. After the accident, both vehicles pulled to
the side of the road. (Doc. # 81 at 2.) Other than minor
paint scratches, there was no damage to the vehicles.
(Id. at 14.) Neither party alerted emergency
responders. (Id.)
However,
the parties do dispute what happened during the accident and
who was responsible for the collision. Stahl alleges that
Zohar caused the accident when her car crossed “several
lanes of traffic” and struck Stahl's vehicle. (Doc.
# 81 at 17.) In addition, Stahl claims that the impact from
this caused his vehicle to “turn 90 degrees to the
left” and tilt up on two wheels. (Id.) Owners,
citing Zohar's deposition, denies these allegations.
(Id. at 19.) Zohar explains that she heard a
“loud popping sound” and felt her vehicle swerve.
(Id.) Thinking that she may have popped a tire, she
pulled to the side of the road. Only after Stahl pulled to
the side of the road too did Zohar realize that their
vehicles had collided. Based on an accident reconstruction
report commissioned by Owners, the delta-V change in speed
between the two vehicles was two miles per hour or less.
(Doc. # 81 at 14.) According to the report, the change in
velocity that Stahl and Zohar experienced as a result of
their vehicles colliding is less than “a typical bumper
car ride.” (Id.) Furthermore, one of
Owners' experts concluded that Stahl caused the accident
when he rear-ended Zohar. (Id. at 20.)
Eleven
days after the accident, Stahl sought medical treatment for
pain in his neck. (Doc. # 130 at 13.) Stahl's x-rays
showed chronic degenerative changes to the C5-6 and C6-7
parts of his spine, which he eventually had surgery to
correct. (Id. at 14.) Stahl claims that his neck
surgery and permanent spinal injuries were a result of the
collision with Zohar. (Doc. # 88 at 3.) Stahl calculated his
total losses as a result of the collision at $875, 000.
(Id. at 5.)
Eventually,
Zohar's insurance company admitted liability for the
accident and paid Stahl $50, 000, which was the maximum
amount allowed under her policy. (Doc. # 136 at 2.) Stahl
then submitted a claim to Owners for $825, 000-the
outstanding amount of his losses not covered by Zohar's
policy. (Doc. # 88 at 7.) On January 29, 2018, Owners told
Stahl that his claim was denied. (Id. at 7.)
B.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Owners
then initiated the instant case, seeking declaratory judgment
that Stahl was not entitled to receive either underinsured
motorist benefits or medical payments benefits (together,
“Benefits”). (Doc. # 81.) Owners asserts three
claims for this relief. First, Owners claims that Stahl was
either negligent in causing the accident or that Stahl does
not have damages in excess of $50, 000, both of which would
render Stahl ineligible for Benefits. (Id. at
12-15.) Second, Owners asserts that, because Stahl failed to
cooperate with Owners' investigation of the accident,
Stahl violated Owners' policy and therefore invalidated
any claim to Benefits. (Id. at 15-16.) Third, Owners
alleges that Stahl made fraudulent statements regarding the
accident, which also violated Owners' policy and
invalidated Stahl's claim to Benefits. (Id. at
16-23.)
Stahl
filed an Answer and Counter Claims on March 28, 2019. (Doc. #
88.) Notably, Stahl seeks to recover Benefits under
Owners' insurance policy, and he asserts six claims for
relief. (Id.) First, Stahl alleges that Owners
breached its contract when it determined that he was not
eligible for Benefits. (Id. at 15-17.) Second, Stahl
asserts that Owners breached its common law duty of good
faith and fair dealing. (Id. at 17-20.) Third, Stahl
claims that Owners violated a Colorado statute that prohibits
insurance companies from unreasonably denying insureds their
benefits. (Id. at 21.) Stahl's fourth, fifth,
and sixth claims for relief allege that Owners committed
fraud in violation of a Colorado statute, Owners abused the
judicial process by committing malicious prosecution, and
Owners violated other Colorado laws, respectively.
(Id. at 21-25.)
During
this time, Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews established
pre-trial deadlines for the disclosure of experts. Initially,
both parties were to disclose affirmative experts by November
14, 2018. See (Doc. # 62 at 2). Stahl requested an
extension, which the magistrate judge granted, extending the
deadline for disclosure of affirmative experts until January
28, 2019. (Doc. # 64.) Three days before this extended
deadline, Stahl again requested an extension. (Doc. # 70.)
The magistrate judge concluded that Stahl had not
demonstrated good cause for a second extension. (Doc. # 80.)
Stahl did not submit any experts by the January 28, 2019
deadline.
Instead,
more than ninety days after the deadline, in the
absence of a court order and without first
seeking leave of the court, Stahl served Owners with
his expert disclosures. (Doc. # 135 at 4.) Magistrate Judge
Crews granted Owners' motion to exclude these experts
(Doc. # 107), and this Court affirmed the magistrate
judge's Order (Doc. # 143). This means that Stahl has no
affirmative experts to prove his claims.
However,
Stahl had an opportunity to disclose a rebuttal witness.
Owners amended its original complaint to include a new claim
that, through his negligence, Stahl caused the car accident.
(Doc. # 81 at 12.) Therefore, the magistrate judge allowed
Stahl to disclose one rebuttal expert on the limited issue of
whether Zohar or Stahl caused the accident. (Doc. # 113.) But
instead of narrowly tailoring the expert disclosure report to
fit within the magistrate judge's parameters, Stahl
simply re-endorsed one of his affirmative experts and
re-submitted that expert's comprehensive report. (Doc. #
118 at 8.) This report ...