August

Patrice Fujisaki Sauter v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

On August 1, 2018, attorneys Frank Patterson and Hillary Patterson obtained a directed verdict for the defendant in the case of Patrice Fujisaki Sauter. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Denver County District Court, 2017CV33275).

Plaintiff Patrice Fujisaki Sauter is the daughter of the deceased homeowner and State Farm insured, Rose Fujisaki.  Plaintiff alleged a hail and wind storm caused damage to Rose Fujisaki’s home and lightweight concrete tile roof.  State Farm determined the concrete tile roof was not damaged in the hail/wind event, but had sustained unrelated damage from improper installation and footfall.   State Farm issued payment to Rose Fujisaki for other damage to the property caused by hail/wind. Plaintiff lived in the home, but did not own the home, was not the named insured on the State Farm policy, and was not the personal representative of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki. Plaintiff brought a first-party claim in her own right alleging breach of contract, common law bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116.

Plaintiff’s claims of breach of contract and common law bad faith were dismissed on summary judgment because Plaintiff was not the homeowner or policyholder, and therefore had no standing to pursue those claims.  The Court denied summary judgment on the claim of unreasonable delay/denial, ruling a fact question remained as to whether Plaintiff had authority to assert the claim on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki.  Plaintiff never moved to amend the pleadings and presented no other timely evidence of her standing to assert claims on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki.

At trial, The Honorable Judge Martin F. Egelhoff ruled on State Farm’s oral motion for directed verdict after Plaintiff rested her case-in-chief.  Judge Egelhoff held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Plaintiff had not presented any evidence that she had legal authority to pursue a claim of unreasonable delay/denial under C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 on behalf of the Estate of Rose Fujisaki.  Therefore, Plaintiff lacked standing and her remaining claim was dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 50.

April

On April 30, 2018, Brian D. Kennedy tried and won case number 2017CV30697 in front of the Honorable Martin F. Egelhoff, in a three day (although scheduled for four) jury trial in Denver District Court.

Plaintiff alleged that Defendant attacked him without warning or provocation while he was walking down Larimer Street near a nightclub called the Retro Room, punching Plaintiff in the back of the head and tackling him.  Defendant denied Plaintiff’s allegations and claimed that Plaintiff came up behind Defendant’s wife and groped her buttocks.  When Defendant approached Plaintiff and began speaking to him about the incident, Defendant alleged that Plaintiff charged him and that, in the ensuing scuffle, Plaintiff fell to the ground, injuring himself.

PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY: Michael L. Glaser, Law Office of Michael L. Glaser, LLC

TYPE OF CLAIMS: Assault, Battery, and Outrageous Conduct.

DIRECTED VERDICTS: The Court directed verdicts in favor of the Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim of assault and on all of Plaintiff’s claims for economic damages.

INJURIES AND/OR DAMAGES ALLEGED: Facial bruising, abrasions and laceration, corneal abrasion, concussion, post-concussive syndrome, depression, anxiety, PTSD, headaches, tinnitus, panic attacks, and ED.  Plaintiff also claimed to have wage loss from missed work as well as diminished earning capacity because of his inability to continue a career in the Air force.

SPECIALS: $24,000 in medical expenses, $1,700 in past wage loss and an estimated $750,000 in future income loss.

FINAL DEMAND BEFORE TRIAL: $395,000
FINAL OFFER BEFORE TRIAL: Statutory offer of $65,000.01

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WITNESSES:  Laur M. Birlea, M.D.
DEFENDANT’S EXPERT WITNESSES: None.

VERDICT: For the defendant on the Plaintiff’s claims of battery and outrageous conduct.

OTHER COMMENTS: The Court excluded evidence of diagnoseable mental health conditions and treatment, as well as evidence of diminished earning capacity as a sanction for discovery violations.  The Court also limited the testimony of Plaintiff’s physicians based upon inadequate disclosures.  Defendant is seeking costs, as well as an award of attorney’s fees for discovery violations.

January

Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn won a defense verdict in an important bad faith “set-up” case in El Paso County with exposure of almost $10 million. The jury found for defendant State Farm on all claims after a 7-day jury trial. 

Plaintiff Melanie Rountree was insured through State Farm for auto insurance liability policies totaling $1,250,000. She was 100% at fault in causing an auto accident on January 19, 2013. Rountree, while extremely intoxicated, drove her vehicle through a red light and collided with Patrick Kirchhofer’s vehicle, causing serious and permanent injuries to Mr. Kirchhofer, including partial paralysis. Ms. Rountree claimed that State Farm unreasonably failed to timely make an offer to settle, causing a judgment to be entered against Ms. Rountree in the amount of $4,102,526.05. State Farm paid its policy limits plus interest and costs after judgment was entered, leaving an unpaid judgment balance of $3,469,598.25 as of the second trial. Rountree entered into a Bashor Agreement with Kirchhofer and was represented at the bad faith trial by the same lawyers who had represented Kirchhofer. She sought the unpaid amount of the judgment, plus two times the insurance limits (a total of $2.5 million) for unreasonable delay under C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 and 1116, punitive damages of $3,469,598.25, and attorney fees. In closing, the total requested by her attorneys was $9,439,196.50, plus attorney fees in excess of $500,000.00.

State Farm provided Rountree a defense to the Kirchhofer suit and Rountree later hired personal counsel. During the underlying litigation, Kirchhofer’s attorneys sent a letter demanding a settlement offer from State Farm. The letter purposely did not say State Farm’s limits would be accepted as a full and final settlement. Rountree and her attorneys advised State Farm not to offer its policy limits because that would immediately expose Rountree’s personal assets for further negotiations. They still hoped to convince Kirchhofer’s attorneys to accept policy limits for a full release. State Farm agreed to Rountree’s request. When State Farm’s policy limits were not offered by the deadline Kirchhofer’s attorneys revoked their “demand”, claimed it was bad faith and argued State Farm was now exposed to the full damages suffered by Kirchhofer. They demanded $12 million at mediation and $27 million at the injury trial. After the injury trial Rountree entered into the Bashor Agreement, assigning her bad faith claim proceeds to Kirchhofer.

During the bad faith trial, Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn convinced the jury that State Farm never had a reasonable opportunity to settle the case for several reasons. First, it was following the request of its insured in not making the policy limits offer. Second, Kirchhofer and his lawyers had no intent to settle for the State Farm policy limits. The lawyers were trying to create a “set-up”, a way to claim bad faith and open the policy limits.

This case is important for insurers because there is a surge of “set-up” cases in Colorado as a result of the punitive provisions of C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 and 1116. This case shows that juries will consider the question whether the insurer had a reasonable chance to settle, and that set-up cases raise real doubts about the plaintiff’s intent to settle.

October

Frank Patterson made oral arguments before the Colorado Supreme Court on the important Fisher v State Farm case on October 18.  He expects a ruling by late Spring.  The Court of Appeals surprised everyone in 2015 by announcing a rule that UM/UIM carriers were required to make piecemeal payments of portions of the UM/UIM claim which were “undisputed”.  Typically, these would be economic damages such as medical expenses.  The Court discovered this requirement in the “Unreasonable Delay/Denial” statute which, Frank argued, makes no mention whatsoever of partial payments or even of the UM/UIM statute.  In effect, the Court of Appeals created a new pay-as-you-go medical coverage like the old PIP or No-Fault system.  Unfortunately, this new mandate from the Court of Appeals came with no guidelines, regulations or legislative guidance such as exist with MPC or existed under the old PIP system.  The case has generated substantial claims disputes and subsequent litigation over demands for “Fisher” payments.  We hope the Supreme Court reverses this unfortunate misinterpretation of Colorado statutes and reinstates the system which had worked well for almost 50 years.  Frank is happy to answer questions about the case or about the current state of the law in relation to Fisher.

September

On September 14, 2017, The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the directed verdict for the defendant obtained by attorneys Frank Patterson and Hillary Patterson  in the case of My Roofer, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (16CA1478; Weld County District Court, 2015CV30425). In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals ruled that decking damaged by the separate, nonfortuitous loss of ‘wear, tear, and deterioration’ was not covered by the OL (Ordinance and Law) endorsement of the State Farm policy.  The court also ruled the pre-existing damaged decking did not constitute ‘undamaged’ property under the terms of the policy for purposes of coverage under the OL endorsement.  Finally, the court ruled that My Roofer failed to preserve the issue of whether the Loss Settlement section of the policy required coverage for the decking under a theory that decking is an inseparable component of a roof assembly or a roof system. The court declined to rule on the unpreserved issue as the new legal theory was not unequivocally correct.  Oral arguments were presented on September 6, 2017.

April

There have been recent changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding disclosure obligations and discovery requests. Requests for disclosure or discovery must be narrowly tailored and proportional to the needs of the case.  In light of these changes, Frank Patterson recently obtained a favorable Order for his client in a bad faith case precluding extensive discovery of what has come to be thought of as “institutional discovery.” The Order can be reviewed here.

In a declaratory relief action filed by the insurer for failure to cooperate after the insured entered into a Nunn Agreement, Frank Patterson and Lindsay Dunn obtained an order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that Nunn Agreements are allowed under Colorado law and therefore, cannot be a failure to cooperate. The trial court denied the motion holding that the case law does not automatically allow for such agreements and that an insured may enter into such an agreement when the insurer has acted unreasonably or in the face of a colorable bad faith claim.  This case will have significant ramifications for insurers’ ability to challenge Nunn Agreements.

Karl Chambers obtained a defense verdict in the case of Shaun Olguin v. Louis Chacon dba Louie’s Barber Shop in Boulder County. The plaintiff claimed that he was injured while receiving a haircut at Louie’s Barber Shop and developed a staph infection that required medical treatment, including surgery.  Karl defended Mr. Chacon on the theory that the plaintiff was never in the barber shop on the date that he claimed, but even if he was, the staph infection was not caused by conditions at the barber shop, but rather was due to a pre-existing medical condition that plaintiff had.  The jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Mr. Chacon finding that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by any negligence of Mr. Chacon or Louie’s Barber Shop.

November

Franklin D. Patterson and Karl Chambers tried and won the case of Nicholas Nelson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in a 6-day jury trial in El Paso County.

This case stemmed out of a motor vehicle accident on March 20, 2010, when Plaintiff and several companions were returning to their California college from New Orleans. A drunk driver going the wrong way on a California highway hit them head-on. The drunk driver fled the scene on foot but was later caught. Plaintiff was in the back seat sleeping, but was seat-belted.  The force of the collision caused significant internal injuries.  The injuries were immediately life-threatening and he developed a hematoma at the sight of the abdominal wall rupture that grew from softball to watermelon size.  Emergency surgery included pulling his abdominal contents out and searching inch by inch for tears or no-viable tissue.  The surgeons removed large sections of the upper and lower intestines and bowels.

Plaintiff settled his claim against the drunk driver for policy limits of $100,000 and then made a demand for underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance benefits under an insurance policy issued by State Farm to his parents. That policy had $1,000,000 in limits.  A demand for policy limits was made 3 months before the Statute of Limitations expired.  State Farm requested additional information which was not provided prior to suit.  The information was provided within 90 days after filing suit. State Farm evaluated and offered $113,000 to resolve the claim.  After a failed mediation, State Farm advanced the $113,000.  State Farm informed the jury it had evaluated the claim in the range of $113,000-160,000 in addition to the BI limits previously received.
Just prior to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, Plaintiff filed suit for UIM benefits, and alleging unreasonable delay, bad faith and (later) punitive damages.

State Farm admitted Plaintiff sustained serious, life-threatening injuries, but claimed he had made a remarkable recovery and had not sought treatment for anything since August, 2011.  In fact, he traveled to South America, living and working there for 6 months in 2011-12.  He had worked two lengthy stints in the backcountry for national parks in the Northwest, creating/restoring trails and removing invasive species, which work involved heavy manual labor.  Further, he completed a 1,500 mile bike trip from Oregon to Mexico. State Farm denied he had ongoing or future medical expenses or income loss.

As to the extra-contractual claims, State Farm alleged any delays were caused by plaintiff, through his lawyer-agents.  State Farm alleged that coverage for additional damages was voided due to failure to cooperate, and material misrepresentations made in correspondence about plaintiff’s ongoing treatment.  Plaintiff, through his lawyer-agents, failed over 3 years to return a signed medical authorization as requested under the policy, and failed to respond to requests for related medical information.  (Plaintiff claimed the other records were minor compared to the uncontested injuries, for which plaintiff counsel supplied the records.)  In addition, State Farm asserted material misrepresentations voided coverage because plaintiff counsel asserted that plaintiff had treatment in 2012 when treatment had actually ended in 2011.

DIRECTED VERDICTS: Defendant’s Motion for Directed Verdict was granted on plaintiff’s claims for future income loss ($660,000) and future medical expense ($440,000).

Plaintiff called Dave Torres as a Claims Handling expert.  Following voir dire, the court determined Mr. Torres lacked qualifications to provide an expert opinion

The jury returned a verdict for Defendant State Farm on Verdict Form A – Plaintiff failed to cooperate, voiding any additional coverage.  As a result, the jury did not address the remaining claims of UIM damages, unreasonable delay, bad faith or punitive damages.


Hillary Patterson obtained an order for dismissal for a pro se plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and for discovery violations  (Brenda Senna v. Leah Flink, 2016CV115). In retaliation for a separate eviction proceeding, Plaintiff brought personal injury claims on behalf of her children and herself against defendant landlord arising out of a water heater fire where plaintiff alleges she and her children were exposed to carbon monoxide. Plaintiff demanded several millions of dollars in damages, but  failed to make any disclosures and failed to appear at two separate depositions.  By obtaining dismissal, extensive  and unnecessary litigation costs were avoided in defending frivolous and meritless claims.

October

In Court of Appeals news, Frank Patterson and Brian Kennedy had a recent victory after briefing and presenting oral arguments before the Colorado Court of Appeals in the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Mabel Garcia, 15CA1771.  In an opinion issued on October 27, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on State Farm’s summary judgment motion that a second household automobile policy covering a vehicle that was not involved in the accident did not provide additional liability coverage (See below for an excerpt of the court’s recitation of the background of the case).

On October 18, 2016, Mr. Patterson presented oral arguments in this case before the Colorado Court of Appeals at Fairview High School.  This case and its attorneys were selected for this special session of the Court of Appeals as part of the Judicial Branch’s Courts in the Community program. Counsel presented arguments in front of a large audience of students and community members and answered questions from the audience following their arguments.

Background

This case involves the interpretation of an auto liability policy. In 2012, Garcia was injured in a collision with State Farm’s insured, Susan Leavitt. Garcia sued Leavitt, seeking compensation for her injuries sustained in the accident. On the date of the accident, Leavitt was insured by two separate State Farm automobile insurance policies. Policy 1 insured Leavitt’s Volvo XC70 for liability up to $100,000. Policy 2 insured a Ford Explorer owned by Leavitt and her husband for liability up to $500,000. At the time of the accident, Leavitt was driving her Volvo XC70. Garcia asserts that Policy 2 provides coverage for the collision between Leavitt’s Volvo and Garcia. State Farm disagrees. . . . The district court entered summary judgment for State Farm, concluding that Policy 2 does not provide coverage for the collision because Leavitt is not an “insured” within the terms of the policy definition.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Garcia, 15CA1771, slip op. at 1-2 (Colo. App. Oct. 27, 2016).

August

Todd Dieterich tried and won the case of Aaron Phillips v. Kyle Smoker, et. al. in a 5 day trial in Denver County District Court. This case stemmed from a multi-vehicle accident on the ramp exiting I-25 North onto I-70 East. As both parties rounded that turn approaching I-70 East, they encountered a pickup truck who had spun out and was sitting parallel to oncoming vehicles blocking traffic. Both parties were behind a third vehicle who braked to avoid the stopped vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was tailgating that vehicle, had insufficient time to stop, and swerved into his lane, striking him and causing him to lose traction and strike the parallel vehicle, strike the cement median and ultimately come to rest in the I-25 South on-ramp where he was struck by an oncoming eighteen wheeler. Defendant alleges that he did change lanes to avoid the vehicle in front of him, but he did so in a safe and prudent manner, and it was the Plaintiff’s excessive speed that caused him to strike the Defendant and the resulting collisions. Plaintiff made claims for neck, back, and shoulder injuries. These injuries allegedly required rhizotomy and facet injections for an indefinite period of time resulting in $1,953,00 in future treatment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.

July

On July 13, 2016, attorneys Frank Patterson and Hillary Patterson obtained a directed verdict for the defendant in the case of My Roofer, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (Weld County District Court, 2015CV30425).

Plaintiff was a roofing company.  State Farm’s insureds suffered roof damages as a result of a hail/wind event.  State Farm determined decking was not damaged in the event, and damage to decking was excluded as wear, tear, and deterioration.  The insureds and the roofer argued State Farm should cover replacement cost of decking under OL coverage (Ordinance or Law) because code required replacement before new shingles were applied.  State Farm contended excluded damages for wear, tear, and deterioration are not restored under OL coverage.

The roofer replaced the decking and took an assignment from the owners for a breach of contract claim.  The roofer brought a first-party claim in its own right alleging unreasonable delay and denial pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116.

The Honorable Judge Todd L. Taylor ruled on State Farm’s oral motion for directed verdict after Plaintiff rested its case-in-chief that.  Judge Taylor held that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Plaintiff had not met its evidentiary burden on the breach of contract claim.  The evidence was overwhelmingly clear beyond doubt that the damage to decking was caused by wear, tear, or deterioration, and that the State Farm policy did not provide coverage for the loss.  All of Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 50.

Prior to trial, attorney Hillary Patterson successfully argued a pre-trial motion regarding Plaintiff’s spoliation of evidence, and the Court issued an order for adverse inference instruction.