FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 29, 2008
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
CEZER M ORRIS, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated ,
Plaintiff-Appellant ,
v.
No. 06-1331
TRAVELERS IND EM NITY
COM PANY OF AM ERICA, a
Connecticut corporation,
Defendant-Appellee .
A ppeal from the U nited States D istrict C ourt
for the D istrict of C olorado
(D .C . N o. 05-cv-00727-E W N -B N B )
Robert B. Carey (Leif Garrison with him on the briefs) of The Carey Law Firm,
Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Sonia S. W aisman of M orrison & Foerster LLP, Los A ngeles, California (J. Eric
Elliff and Lila M . Bateman, of M orrison & Foerster LLP, Denver, Colorado, with
her on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellee.
Before H A R T Z , SE Y M O U R , and M cC O N N E L L , Circuit Judges.
SE Y M O U R , Circuit Judge.
Cezer M orris (“M r. M orris”) filed this action against Travelers Indemnity
Company of America (“Travelers”) for failure to pay insurance benefits he claims
Travelers owed him for injuries arising out of an accident involving a car insured
by Travelers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers.
M r. M orris appeals, and we reverse.
I
On January 23, 2002, M r. M orris w as involved in an automobile accident in
Denver, Colorado. He was a passenger in a 1996 Toyota Avalon driven by Lee
Grant Austin. M r. M orris suffered severe injuries, incurred medical expenses,
and lost wages. At the time of the accident, the Toyota was insured by Travelers
under a policy issued to Dorothy Austin (“M s. Austin”). Under Colorado law, as
a passenger in the vehicle, M r. M orris was covered by M s. Austin’s policy. C OLO .
R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-707. As such, M r. M orris began receiving basic personal
insurance protection (“PIP”) benefits from Travelers under M s. Austin’s policy.
Once these basic PIP benefits were exhausted, however, Travelers ceased paying
benefits altogether. M r. M orris now seeks enhanced PIP (“APIP”) benefits.
M r. M orris brought this action asserting that Travelers (1) breached the
insurance contract between Travelers and M s. Austin by failing to pay APIP
-2-
benefits, 1 and (2) violated Colorado law by failing to offer such benefits. See
C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-706(4)(a); Thom pson v. Budget Rent-a-Car Sys., Inc.,
940 P.2d 987, 990 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996) (concluding “[w]hen an insurer fails to
offer the insured optional coverage that it is statutorily required to offer,
additional coverage in conformity with the required offer is incorporated into the
agreement by operation of law”). He sought reformation of the insurance contract
and a declaration of rights under the proposed reformed contract. Travelers
contended that M s. Austin, the policyholder, was offered and declined APIP
coverage. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers.
II
In diversity cases, the laws of the forum state govern our analysis of the
underlying claims, while federal law determines the propriety of the district
court’s summary judgment. Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co., 479 F.3d 735, 739 (10th Cir.
2007). W e review grants of summary judgment de novo, “applying the same
standard as the district court pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the F EDERAL R ULES OF
C IVIL P ROCEDURE .” Gwinn v. Awmiller, 354 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2004).
The Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act, C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-
1
If purchased, APIP coverage applies to non-family occupants of a vehicle,
like M r. M orris. Brennan v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 550, 553
(Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
-3-
701 (repealed July 1, 2003) (“No-Fault Act” or “Act”), “w as enacted in 1973 with
the purpose of avoiding inadequate compensation to all victims of automobile
accidents in the State of Colorado.” Reid v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 1163,
1165 (10th Cir. 2007). The Act required automobile insurance policies “to
include certain minimum or basic personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits to
compensate injured persons for medical expenses and lost wages resulting from
an automobile accident.” Id. The Act also required insurers to offer the named
insured optional APIP benefits, in exchange for higher premiums. C OLO . R EV .
S TAT . § 10-4-710(2)(a). Specifically, the Act stated:
Every insurer shall offer the following enhanced benefits for
inclusion in a complying policy, in addition to the basic coverages
described in section 10-4-706, at the option of the named insured:
(I) Compensation of all expenses of the type described in section 10-
4-706(1)(b) [medical and non-medical expenses up to $50,000 per
person per accident] without dollar or time limitation; or
(II) Compensation of all expenses of the type described in section 10-
4-706(1)(b) without dollar or time limitations and payment of
benefits equivalent to eighty-five percent of loss of gross income per
week from work the injured person would have performed had such
injured person not been injured during the period comm encing on the
day after the date of accident without dollar or time limitations.
C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-710(2)(a).
Subsequent to the district court’s decision and contrary to its conclusion,
the C olorado Court of A ppeals held that insurers must offer both kinds of
enhanced coverage to comply with the statute, rather than either/or at the option
of the insurer. Soto v. Progressive Mountain Ins. Co., (No. 05CA1032) 2007 W L
-4-
2128189, at *5 (Colo. Ct. App. July 26, 2007) (unpublished) (cert. pending); see
also Reid, 499 F.3d at 1168 (applying Soto). Failure to make a compliant offer of
APIP benefits violates the statute and results in automatic reformation of the
contract to include such additional coverage. Thom pson, 940 P.2d at 990. The
No-Fault Act does, however, allow insurers to cap APIP benefits at $200,000 per
person. C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-710(2)(a).
M s. Austin’s Travelers policy included basic PIP coverage, but not APIP
coverage. As part of the application process for this policy, M s. Austin signed a
“Supplementary Personal Injury Application – Colorado” form (“PIP Form”), and
an “ACORD” application form. The PIP Form explained that Travelers offered
“benefits for medical expenses, rehabilitation expenses, work loss, essential
services expenses and death compensation resulting from an eligible person’s
injuries caused by an auto accident.” Supp. App. at 2379. The PIP Form also
offered two forms of “additional personal injury protection”: Option RA and
Option RARB. Option RA offered, inter alia, a maximum of $200,000 in medical
expenses, a maximum of $50,000 in rehabilitation expenses, and a maximum of
$400 per week in wage loss expenses for up to 52 weeks. All benefits under
Option RA were subject to a $200,000 maximum aggregate. Option RARB
offered, inter alia, up to a $200,000 maximum aggregate for medical and
rehabilitation expenses, and up to $400 per week in wage loss expenses (with no
-5-
time limit) subject to the same $200,000 maximum aggregate. M s. Austin
declined both forms of enhanced coverage.
In Allstate Ins. Co. v. Parfrey, 830 P.2d 905 (Colo. 1992), the Colorado
Supreme Court held that an insurer must offer insurance coverage “in a manner
reasonably calculated to permit the potential purchaser to make an informed
decision.” 830 P.2d at 913. In determining whether an insurer complied with this
standard, courts must look to the totality of circumstances. Id. at 914. In doing
so, courts may appropriately consider:
. . . 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 would be purchased, and
any other circumstances bearing on the adequacy and clarity of the
notification and offer.”
Id. at 913.
Under the summary judgement standard, therefore, Travelers was required
to support its motion with evidence that it had made a statutorily compliant offer
of A PIP coverage to the insured in this case. After reviewing the record, we
conclude that Travelers did not establish it made an offer of APIP coverage in
compliance with C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-710(2)(a)(II). That portion of the
statute requires insurers to offer an APIP coverage option that includes, among
other things, “payment of benefits equivalent to eighty-five percent of loss of
gross income per week from work the injured person would have performed had
-6-
such injured person not been injured . . .” C OLO . R EV . S TAT . § 10-4-710(2)(a)(II)
(emphasis added). The closest option Travelers offered on the PIP Form w as
Option RARB, which only provided for $400 per week in work loss payments. 2
Supp. App. at 2379. This amount could be insufficient to compensate for an
eighty-five percent loss of gross income in m any cases. Additionally, the PIP
Form on which the APIP coverage options appear do not list their prices. Id.
Consequently, Travelers’ A PIP coverage options on the PIP Form did not comply
with the statute and were not offered “in a manner reasonably calculated to permit
the potential purchaser to make an informed decision.” Parfrey, 830 P.2d at 913. 3
Travelers contends that even if the APIP coverage options described on the
PIP Form were statutorily deficient, the APIP coverage options on the ACORD
form were compliant. Travelers points to the fact that “this form explicitly lists
APIP coverage options, including an option for w age loss benefits unlimited in
time and/or unlimited in weekly amount.” A ple. Br. at 26 (emphasis in original);
2
Option RA also provided for $400 per week in work loss payments, but
only for up to 52 w eeks.
3
The fact that M s. Austin declined these non-compliant offers does not
mean that she would have rejected compliant ones or that Travelers’
noncompliance should be excused. Thom pson, 940 P.2d at 990 (“Here, because
Budget did not offer supplemental no-fault coverage . . . we conclude that such
coverage, was automatically incorporated into the agreement. W e further conclude
that the driver’s after-the-fact statement that he would have refused the additional
coverage if it had been offered does not require a different result.”).
-7-
see also Supp. App. at 2381. Thus, Travelers argues, “the ACORD Form offers
an option for APIP coverage even greater than set forth under Section 10-4-
710(2)(a)(II).” A ple. Br. at 26. W e are not persuaded this was a compliant offer.
The section of the ACORD form that Travelers refers to is merely a series
of tiny boxes in the middle of an extensive application form. See Supp. App. at
2381. If not explained by an agent, these boxes could be confusing. Id. There is
a “Weekly W ork Loss Benefit” box, for instance, located next to an empty box
which, in turn, is located next to a box containing a dollar sign, a space
(presumably where the applicant can fill in a dollar amount) and the words “per
week.” There is also a box called “No W eekly Limit.” These boxes contain no
explanations about what a “weekly work loss benefit” might entail, no
instructions as to how the boxes needed to be filled in to purchase such benefits,
no price information, and no discussion of how the boxes related (if at all) to the
APIP options listed on the PIP Form. 4 Applicants reading these forms together
might reasonably believe that they are limited to the APIP options described on
the PIP Form. The boxes on the A CORD form do not, therefore, offer APIP
coverage “in a manner reasonably calculated to permit the potential purchaser to
4
Compare with Reid, 499 F.3d at 1166, 1169 (finding a compliant offer of
APIP coverage where each option was numbered and “followed by three more
columns setting forth for each option (a) the ‘Total A ggregate Limit of Applicable
PIP Benefits;’ (b) the applicable ‘W ork Loss Limitations;’ and (c) a percentage
reflecting the ‘A pproximate A dditional Premium Per V ehicle.’”
-8-
make an informed decision.” Parfrey, 830 P.2d at 913.
Travelers also contends that M s. Austin received a verbal explanation of
Travelers’ APIP benefits from Roger Suggs (“M r. Suggs”), a Travelers insurance
agent, and that these explanations “constitute[d] part of the offer.” Aple. Br. at
27. W hile it is indeed true that insurers need not provide written explanations of
their APIP coverage options, see Stickley v. State Farm M ut. Auto. Ins. Co., 505
F.3d 1070, 1077 (10th Cir. 2007), the evidence in the record does not
unambiguously establish that M r. Suggs provided a sufficient explanation of
Travelers’ A PIP benefits to M s. Austin.
The only evidence presented to the district court on this matter was an
affidavit by M r. Suggs. Aplt. App. at 1357-59. This affidavit asserts M r. Suggs
had “a routine practice that [he] established in order to assure that each insurance
applicant [was] fully informed about the insurance they [were] buying,” id. at
1357, and that it was his practice to review the PIP Form w ith each applicant “and
discuss the various PIP and APIP options that were available.” Id. at 1358. M r.
Suggs admits in the affidavit that he does not have a “specific recollection of M s.
Austin” or of his conversation with her. Id. He avers, however, that “[a]t that
time, following my usual routine, I would have explained the various coverage
options to her, including the availability of APIP coverage. I have no reason to
believe that I did not follow this procedure with M s. Austin.” Id.
-9-
An affidavit from an agent that it was his usual practice to explain the
various APIP coverage options constitutes relevant evidence that his conduct on
the occasion he met with the insured was in conformity with that routine practice.
F ED . R. E VID . 406. The question remains, however, whether what we know about
M r. Suggs’ routine, coupled with other evidence offered by Travelers, was
sufficient to meet Travelers’ burden to show it made a compliant offer of
coverage. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970) (“As the
moving party, respondent had the burden of showing the absence of a genuine
issue as to any material fact, and for those purposes the material it lodged must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the opposing party.”).
Traveler’s relies on Johnson v. State Farm M ut. Automobile Ins. Co., 158 F.
Appx. 119 (10th Cir. 2005), to support its argument that it was entitled to
summary judgment here. W hile unpublished cases are not precedential in this
circuit, we nevertheless find Johnson instructive. There, the affidavit from the
insurance agent established she had met with the insured and that it was her
routine practice to make “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.” Id. at 122. Thus, it was “[t]he evidence of a face-to-face meeting
where [the insured] received a pamphlet explaining the different levels” of
-10-
coverage,” id., that this court held was sufficient to meet the insurance
company’s burden to establish it had made a compliant offer. Notably, the district
court in Johnson, and presumably the record on appeal, made clear that “[t]he
“Coverages” chart used by [the agent] describes the details of each coverage,
including enhanced coverage as required by C.R.S. § 10-4-710, in detail.”
Johnson v. State Farm M ut. Automobile Ins. Co., No. 02-M K-2252 (D. Colo. Jun.
30, 2004), Aplt. App., vol. IV at 1318-34 (emphasis added).
In Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co., 479 F. 3d at 742, we cited Johnson favorably in
concluding that Allstate had met its burden to show it made a compliant offer.
W e noted that “[i]n Johnson, we held that a face-to-face meeting in which the
agent explained the various coverage options, coupled with a brochure which
provided a short explanation of and chart describing PIP coverages, constituted a
sufficient offer under the No-Fault Act.” Id. at 742 (emphasis added). As in
Johnson, the facts in Hill do not support the conclusion that a bare description in
non-specific terms of an agent’s routine practice describing extended APIP
coverage is sufficient, by itself, to meet the insurance company’s burden to
establish a statutorily compliant offer. Hill involved an insurance agent’s
deposition testimony describing the specific discussion she recalled having with
the insured. She testified that she showed him the available A PIP coverages both
on her computer and on a Disclosure Form. The district court’s opinion in Hill
-11-
makes particularly clear, Allstate’s Disclosure Form described two options that
were compliant with the requirements of both of the sections of Colo. Rev. State.
§ 10-4-710 (2)(a) that are at issue in this case. The district court there said,
Option VB02 provides coverage of medical expenses without any
time limitation, with a 200,000 thousand dollar ‘aggregate limit for
PIP and Additional PIP’ this APIP coverage offer satisfies the
requirements of § 10-4-710(2)(a)(I), C.R.S. Option VB01 provides
the same coverage for medical expenses, plus work loss coverage of
‘100 % of the first $125/week loss in gross income, 85% of
remaining loss in gross income’ without any time limitation. This
APIP coverage offer satisfied the requirements of § 10-4-
710(2)(a)(II), C.R.S.
Hill v. Allstate Ins. Co, 2006 W L 229202 at * 3 (D. Colo. 2006). Consequently,
this court reasonably concluded on appeal in Hill:
Allstate’s offer of extended PIP benefits to [the insured] was
adequate and enabled [the insured] to make an informed decision
about whether to purchase extended coverage. [The insured] had a
face-to-face meeting with [the agent], in which [the agent] testified
she explained the various coverages, showed [the insured] the
options for extended PIP coverage on her computer screen and went
over the PIP D isclosure Form.
479 F.3d at 742 (emphasis added)
As is apparent, our determinations in both Johnson and Hill that the
insurance companies made compliant offers were based on significantly more
evidence than the bare statement of an insurance agent that he had a routine
practice of explaining extended APIP coverage. Instead, the evidence provided
by the insurance companies in those cases were a combination of detailed written
-12-
material provided or explained to the insureds and the agent’s testimony about his
or her routine practices. Here, to the contrary, we have held that the written
materials provided to M s. Austin, the policyholder, were insufficient to establish
that Travelers made an offer compliant with § 10-4-710(a)(2)(II) of the Colorado
statute. Significantly, for our purposes, M r. Suggs’ affidavit does not fill in the
gaps. It provides no specific details about M r. Suggs’ “usual routine.” Given
Traveler’s position prior to Soto that it was only required to offer one of the tw o
options set forth in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-701(2)(a), not both, coupled with its
confusing forms, we cannot assume that M r. Suggs w ould have correctly
explained to M r. A ustin the second APIP option required by § 10-4-710(a)(2)(II).
H aving no w ay of assessing the adequacy of M r. Suggs’ routine explanation, w e
cannot conclude as a matter of law that it was sufficient. Accordingly, a genuine
issue of material fact remains as to whether the information provided by M r.
Suggs permitted M s. Austin to make a reasonably informed purchase decision.
See Parfrey, 830 F.2d at 915 (reversing summary judgment because genuine
issues of fact existed concerning, among other things, what an Allstate agent’s
usual practice actually entailed).
III
In sum, we conclude that the district court should not have granted
-13-
summary judgment in favor of Travelers. Travelers’ written APIP coverage
options were not statutorily compliant, and there is a genuine issue of material
fact as to w hether the verbal information provided by Travelers allow ed M s.
Austin to make a reasonably informed purchase decision.
Accordingly, we R EV ER SE the judgment of the district court and remand
for further proceedings.
-14-