F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
December 9, 2005
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
Clerk of Court
STEVEN R. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 04-1550
(D.C. No. 02-MK-2252 (OES))
STATE FARM MUTUAL (D. Colo.)
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO , ANDERSON , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.
Steven R. Johnson, a passenger injured in a motor vehicle accident, sued
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, which insured the owners of
the automobile in which he was riding. Alleging that State Farm had failed to
comply with a Colorado statute requiring insurance companies to offer
*
The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant
to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
policyholders enhanced personal injury protection (“PIP”), Johnson, as a covered
person under the policy, sought reformation of the insurance contract to include
enhanced PIP benefits and payment of such benefits under the reformed contract.
See Thompson v. Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc. , 940 P.2d 987, 989 (Colo. App.
1996) (injured passenger can sue to reform insurance contract if the contract does
not comply with the statutory rule that insurers must offer enhanced PIP
coverage). He now appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment
in favor of State Farm. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
AFFIRM .
Johnson’s accident occurred on September 8, 1998, in an automobile driven
by Luke Wright with permission of the owners, George and Mimah Singh.
Johnson sought reimbursement for his medical expenses through State Farm, the
Singhs’ insurer. By July 2001, he had exhausted the basic PIP benefits provided
under the Singhs’ policy.
At the time the Singhs purchased their policy, Colorado law required motor
vehicle owners to maintain minimum insurance coverage on their vehicles,
including no-fault PIP coverage. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-04-705; Brennan v.
Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co ., 961 P.2d 550, 552 (Colo. App. 1998). 1
The
1
The Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act was codified in Colo. Rev.
Stat. §§ 10-4-701 to 10-4-726, and repealed by Laws 1997, H.B. 97-1209, § 8,
(continued...)
-2-
mandatory minimum PIP coverage provided for amounts to be paid for reasonable
and necessary medical care, rehabilitative care, lost wages, and death benefits in
the event of an accident, without regard to fault. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-04-706(1).
Also, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-710(2)(a), insurers were required “to offer the
named insured extended PIP benefits in exchange for higher premiums. These
extended PIP benefits do not place time or dollar limitations on medical expense
claims . . . .” Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co ., 319 F.3d 1234, 1238
(10th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).
Johnson’s complaint alleged that State Farm had failed to offer enhanced
PIP benefits to the Singhs in accordance with section 710(2)(a). The parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment on this issue. In support of its motion, State
Farm produced an affidavit from Jill Camp, the licensed staff agent who had met
personally with George Singh. The affidavit stated that Camp did not specifically
recall her contact with Singh, but provided evidence of her usual practices with
regard to offering enhanced PIP coverage. 2
1
(...continued)
effective July 1, 2003. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-726 (effective July 1, 2003).
2
State Farm also provided deposition testimony on the regular business
practices of Ken Wilyard, the independent contract agent who had instructed
Camp to conduct a meeting with the Singhs. Because Wilyard admitted that he
had not met with the Singhs himself, the district court disregarded his testimony.
State Farm makes no showing that the district’s evidentiary decision amounted to
an abuse of discretion. See Sports Racing Servs., Inc. v. Sports Car Club of Am.,
(continued...)
-3-
Johnson could not locate the Singhs and therefore lacked any firsthand
knowledge of their discussions with State Farm representatives. Johnson did not
attempt to contradict Camp’s affidavit. Rather, he questioned the legal effect of
the information she provided to the Singhs.
The district court determined that State Farm’s evidence was sufficient to
demonstrate that it had offered enhanced PIP benefits in compliance with section
710(2)(a). It therefore denied Johnson’s motion for summary judgment and
granted State Farm’s motion. Johnson now appeals the district court’s entry of
judgment in favor of State Farm.
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same
standard as the district court.” McKnight v. Kimberly Clark Corp. , 149 F.3d
1125, 1128 (10th Cir. 1998). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment
should be entered by the district court “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
2
(...continued)
Inc. , 131 F.3d 874, 894 (10th Cir. 1997) (reviewing a district court’s decision to
exclude evidence at the summary judgment stage for abuse of discretion).
Therefore, we do not credit Wilyard’s testimony on appeal.
-4-
On appeal, the parties agree that State Farm would bear the ultimate burden
of persuasion at trial. Thus, State Farm is required to “support its motion with
credible evidence . . . that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted
at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 331 (1986). “Such an affirmative
showing shifts the burden of production to the party opposing the motion and
requires that party . . . to produce evidentiary materials that demonstrate the
existence of a ‘genuine fact’ for trial.” Id. at 331.
In analyzing “the nature and scope of an insurer’s duty” under a similar
provision of Colorado insurance law, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that
the insurer must perform its duty of notification “in a manner reasonably
calculated to permit the [insured] to make an informed decision on whether to
purchase . . . coverage higher than the minimum statutory liability limits.”
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Parfrey , 830 P.2d 905, 913 (Colo. 1992) (discussing Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 10-4-609(b)(2), which requires the insurer to offer higher than the statutory
minimum in uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage). 3
Parfrey explained the
proper test for analyzing whether an insurer performed its duty of notification:
3
In its appeal brief, State Farm advocates against the application of the
Parfrey test and argues for a test that simply requires it to meet a “make
available” requirement. There is no indication in the record that this argument
was presented to the district court. Accordingly, it has not been taken into
consideration in our resolution of this appeal. See In re Walker , 959 F.2d 894,
896 (10th Cir. 1992) (stating that ordinarily this court does not consider
arguments made for the first time on appeal).
-5-
In determining whether an insurer has fulfilled its statutory duty, a
court may appropriately consider such factors as the clarity with
which the purpose of . . . coverage was explained to the insured,
whether the explanation was made orally or in writing, the specificity
of the options made known to the insured, the price at which the
different levels of . . . coverage could be purchased, and any other
circumstances bearing on the adequacy and clarity of the notification
and offer.
Id. at 913. “In the final analysis,” the sufficiency of the offer “must be resolved
under the totality of circumstances.” Id. at 914.
Camp’s affidavit indicates that she had a face-to-face meeting with George
Singh to review his coverage. Without specifically describing their discussion,
she related her customs and practices for review meetings. During such meetings,
she made policyholders aware of higher PIP limits, using a brochure she attached
to her affidavit. The brochure provided a short explanation of PIP benefits, along
with a chart showing the varying levels of available PIP coverage. Camp also
routinely told policyholders that PIP covered both policyholders and passengers.
Johnson argues on appeal that, under the Parfrey test, State Farm’s evidence
was insufficient to show an adequate offer of enhanced PIP benefits. Specifically,
he asserts that Camp’s affidavit does not provide evidence that State Farm met two
of the Parfrey factors: (1) clear advice on the purpose of additional PIP coverage
and (2) the cost of such coverage. The district court dismissed these arguments,
stating:
-6-
No doubt . . . the Defendant could have presented more information
to the Singhs concerning the costs and benefits of enhanced PIP
coverage. However, the Parfrey analysis does not require an insurer
to thoroughly address all of the conceivable situations in which
enhanced PIP coverage might be desirable. Rather the law merely
requires that the insured b[e] given enough information to advise the
insured of the availability of coverage and permit a reasonably
informed decision on whether to purchase it.
The sample brochure describes the purpose of PIP coverage. Further, the
parties met in person, affording Singh the opportunity to ask Camp questions about
the policy. See Parfrey , 830 P.2d at 914 n.5 (noting that most courts examining
the issue have found face-to-face negotiations to be particularly compelling
evidence). Although the lack of a discussion of the price of enhanced PIP
insurance is an important factor under the Parfrey analysis, State Farm’s failure to
inform Singh about the specific cost does not in itself render the offer
commercially unreasonable. In a totality of the circumstances analysis, “[n]o
single factor is conclusive.” Lambertsen v. Utah Dep’t. of Corr. , 79 F.3d 1024,
1028 (10th Cir. 1996). The evidence of a face-to-face meeting where Singh
received a pamphlet explaining the different levels of PIP coverage is sufficient.
Had Singh been at all interested in purchasing enhanced PIP coverage after it was
explained to him by Camp, it would have been easy for him to determine the price
at which he could purchase the coverage. Under the totality of circumstances,
Camp’s affidavit demonstrates that State Farm made a commercially reasonable
offer of enhanced PIP benefits to the Singhs.
-7-
Thus, the burden shifted to Johnson to produce evidence demonstrating the
existence of a material fact for trial. Because Johnson did not come forward with
any evidence contradicting State Farm’s factual position, the district court properly
granted State Farm’s summary judgment motion.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED .
Entered for the Court
Carlos F. Lucero
Circuit Judge
-8-