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 In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals ruled that decking damaged by the separate, nonfortuitous loss of ‘wear, tear, and deterioration’ was not covered by the OL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.

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).