FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
June 28, 2010
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL R. CAHILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 09-1200
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 1:07-CV-01910-MSK-MJW)
Jeremy A. Sitcoff, (Bradley A. Levin and Michael J. Rosenberg, with him on the
briefs), Roberts Levin Rosenberg PC, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff - Appellant.
A. Peter Gregory, (Richard A. Orona, with him on the brief), Harris, Karstaedt,
Jamison & Powers, P.C., Englewood, Colorado, for Defendant - Appellee.
Before TACHA, KELLY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
Daniel R. Cahill was injured in a car accident on January 14, 1998. He
received benefits from his insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Company,
until March 23, 1998, when American Family said that he had exhausted the
maximum benefits available. On August 14, 2007, Mr. Cahill sued American
Family in Colorado state court on several state-law causes of action arising out of
American Family’s failure to comply with Colorado insurance law. American
Family removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado, based on diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity
jurisdiction) & 1441 (right of removal). It then moved for summary judgment on
the ground that all of Mr. Cahill’s claims were time-barred. The district court
granted the motion.
Mr. Cahill appeals. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we
affirm. Although Mr. Cahill’s brief appears to raise six challenges on appeal, we
consider only one. We need not consider the others, because they were either
inadequately preserved or presented, or the result would not be altered even if
they were successful. The one challenge we address on the merits is Mr. Cahill’s
claim that he is entitled to equitable tolling; but we reject the argument that the
limitations periods should have been tolled until American Family informed him
that it had not paid benefits required by law.
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are largely undisputed. To the extent that they are, we
view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Cahill because we are
reviewing a summary judgment against him. See Milne v. USA Cycling Inc., 575
F.3d 1120, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 2009).
-2-
On January 14, 1998, Mr. Cahill was driving a car that was struck by a
vehicle driven by a drunk, uninsured motorist. Mr. Cahill, who was 20 years old,
suffered severe injuries, including a brain injury that left him in a coma. He was
hospitalized for about five months.
After Mr. Cahill’s release from the hospital, he moved back in with his
parents, where he remained until 2005. While living at home, Mr. Cahill
continued to receive speech, physical, occupational, recreational, and language
therapy as an outpatient.
At the time of his accident, Mr. Cahill was insured under his father’s
automobile policy issued by American Family. The policy provided no-fault
personal-injury-protection (PIP) coverage. Because of the extent of Mr. Cahill’s
injuries, his PIP coverage was quickly depleted, and on March 23, 1998,
American Family informed his father that Mr. Cahill’s PIP benefits had been
exhausted.
Mr. Cahill’s PIP coverage was the minimum required under Colorado law.
Under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (CAARA), Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 10-4-701 et seq., which governed automobile insurance at the time of
Mr. Cahill’s accident, insurers were required to offer, for an increased premium,
enhanced PIP coverage in addition to the minimum coverage. See Colo. Rev.
Stat. § 10-4-710(2) (2002); see generally Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
319 F.3d 1234, 1237–38 (10th Cir. 2003) (describing the PIP requirements of
-3-
CAARA). But many American Family policyholders, including Mr. Cahill’s
father, had not been offered such enhanced PIP benefits.
Several American Family policyholders filed separate putative class-action
and single-plaintiff lawsuits against American Family based on its CAARA
violations. Each sought, among other things, reformation of the policy so that the
policyholders would be entitled to the enhanced PIP benefits. Three putative
class-action suits are noted by the parties. The first was French v. American
Family, filed in Colorado state court in November 2000. The French plaintiffs
alleged breach-of-contract and deceptive-trade-practice claims on behalf of a
putative class consisting of all holders of defective American Family policies.
Class certification in French was denied on December 4, 2002. The next putative
class action was Marshall v. American Family, which was filed in Colorado state
court in April 2003. Its claims were similar to those in French. Class
certification was denied on November 13, 2003. The third, Hicks v. American
Family, was filed in June 2004 in Colorado state court. Hicks sought reformation
of insurance policies on behalf of a class of insureds that included Mr. Cahill.
The Hicks class was certified and reformation was granted on November 2, 2005.
Meanwhile, American Family began reviewing its policies in late 2000 and
ultimately concluded that it had not complied with Colorado law. In May 2004
American Family voluntarily notified some policyholders that they might be
-4-
eligible for policy reformation. Although American Family contends that it
notified Mr. Cahill, he has denied receiving the notification.
In the spring of 2007, American Family, acting under a court order in
Hicks, notified Mr. Cahill that he was entitled to enhanced PIP benefits.
Mr. Cahill acknowledges receiving this notification. On August 9, 2007,
American Family determined that it owed Mr. Cahill $37,489 in additional PIP
benefits for his 1998 injury, and it paid him that amount. On August 14
Mr. Cahill commenced this action in Colorado state court.
After American Family removed the case to federal district court,
Mr. Cahill filed an amended complaint alleging five state-law causes of action:
(1) fraudulent misrepresentation, because in 1998 American Family falsely
represented to him that his PIP benefits had been exhausted; (2) concealment,
because American Family had failed to disclose that its policy did not comply
with Colorado law, even though it had known of the noncompliance since 2000;
(3) bad-faith breach of insurance contract, because American Family had
knowingly failed to provide him with the enhanced PIP benefits to which he was
entitled; (4) outrageous conduct, because American Family had failed to provide
enhanced PIP benefits and had not investigated whether this failure would cause
him harm, thereby intentionally inflicting emotional distress on him; and (5)
violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), Colo. Rev. Stat.
-5-
§ 6-1-101 et seq., because American Family had misrepresented the qualities and
benefits of its insurance coverage.
American Family moved for summary judgment, arguing that all of
Mr. Cahill’s claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The
district court granted the motion and dismissed Mr. Cahill’s claims. According to
the district court, a two-year limitations period applied to the outrageous-conduct
claim, and a three-year period applied to the other claims. It ruled (1) that the
fraudulent-misrepresentation, bad-faith-breach-of-contract, and CCPA claims had
accrued by March 23, 1998, when American Family sent notification that
Mr. Cahill’s PIP benefits had expired, and (2) that his concealment and
outrageous-conduct claims had accrued no later than November 2000, when
American Family knew that it had violated CAARA. It rejected Mr. Cahill’s
contention that the limitations periods were tolled by American Family’s failure
to inform him that he was entitled to additional PIP benefits, reasoning that
Mr. Cahill could have ascertained that his policy failed to comply with Colorado
law even without such notification. The court assumed that the limitations
periods for the bad-faith and CCPA claims had been tolled during the pendency of
the French litigation, which raised both claims; but it calculated that the
limitations periods for both claims would still have expired well before this
litigation commenced. And even though Mr. Cahill had “recite[d] some facts that
arguably could support a toll based on his incapacity,” the court declined to
-6-
consider such tolling because he had failed to “put forth any meaningful argument
regarding such a toll.” Cahill v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., No. 07-cv-1910-MSK-
MJW, 2009 WL 973565, at *4 n.3 (D. Colo. April 9, 2009)
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. See
Evers v. Regents of Univ. of Colo., 509 F.3d 1304, 1308 (10th Cir. 2007).
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). Because the basis for the district court’s jurisdiction was
diversity of citizenship, the accrual, limitations periods, and tolling
determinations are governed by Colorado substantive law. See State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Boellstorff, 540 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2008). Mr. Cahill
bears the burden of establishing the factual foundation for tolling. See Overheiser
v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 814 P.2d 12, 13 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
B. Issues on Appeal
In deciding what issues to address on appeal, we have no interest in
denying relief to Mr. Cahill on technical grounds. But it is not our role to serve
as his lawyer. We will not construct arguments for him out of isolated sentences
in his briefs. Nor will we fill the gaps in undeveloped arguments unsupported by
-7-
citations to relevant authority. See Gross v. Burggraf Constr. Co., 53 F.3d 1531,
1547 (10th Cir. 1995). Moreover, we must not be unfair to the opposing party,
who should not be required to guess at what issues are being raised and must be
addressed or, alternatively, to devote its brief to every argument that is possibly
being raised. And it will be an unusual case in which we consider on appeal an
argument not raised by an appellant in the district court, both because of the
inefficiencies caused by parties’ holding arguments in reserve and because the
appellee would have been deprived of the opportunity to present evidence either
to rebut the newly raised argument or to support an alternative ground that moots
that argument. See Tele-Commc’ns, Inc. v. Comm’r, 104 F.3d 1229, 1232–33
(10th Cir. 1997).
With these considerations in mind, we turn to Mr. Cahill’s arguments in his
opening brief on appeal. (We do not address arguments first raised in his reply
brief. See Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236, 1250–51 (10th Cir. 2007) (arguments
first raised in a reply brief come too late).) As previously stated, the district court
ruled (a) that a two-year limitations period applied to Mr. Cahill’s outrageous-
conduct claim and a three-year period applied to the other claims; and (b) that the
fraudulent-misrepresentation, bad-faith-breach-of-contract, and CCPA claims
accrued by March 23, 1998, and the concealment and outrageous-conduct claims
accrued by November 2000. In opposition to those rulings, Mr. Cahill raises the
following contentions: (1) that his claims were equitably tolled until American
-8-
Family disclosed to him that it had violated CAARA; (2) that his causes of action
could not have accrued before December 2003, when American Family began
voluntarily reforming its policies and informing insureds; (3) that the court erred
in saying that despite his disabilities he could reasonably have known the
essential elements of his claims before he moved out of his parents’ home in
2005; (4) that the limitations periods were extended by class-action tolling; (5)
that each of his causes of action is subject to a three-year statute of limitations;
and (6) that his causes of action could not have accrued before November 2000,
when American Family learned of its failure to comply with CAARA.
We believe that contention 1 is properly before us, but, as explained below,
we are not persuaded by Mr. Cahill’s arguments. As for the other five
contentions, we need not resolve their merits.
Two of the contentions have not been properly presented. We decline to
address contention 2 because Mr. Cahill’s opening brief provides no argument
why the date of voluntary reformation or notice to other insureds is relevant to the
accrual date, and he failed to raise this contention in district court. Similarly, we
decline to address contention 3 because Mr. Cahill’s opening brief provides no
legal authority regarding why his mental condition extended his time to bring suit
and, more importantly, because he did not adequately raise such an argument
below, so American Family had no occasion to seek or offer evidence regarding
the extent of his impairment. We are not unsympathetic to the view that
-9-
limitations periods are tolled while the prospective plaintiff is mentally disabled.
But the alleged period during which Mr. Cahill was in a coma was too brief to
affect the result in this case. And in the absence of facts developed below and
legal theories advanced in this court, we cannot determine whether Mr. Cahill’s
mental condition was such that tolling would be appropriate during the period that
he lived at home after recovering consciousness.
In light of our disposition of contentions 1, 2, and 3, Mr. Cahill’s remaining
contentions cannot affect the result. With respect to contention 4—class-action
tolling—his opening brief argues only that the limitations periods were tolled by
the Hicks class-action litigation. But that suit was not brought until June 2004,
after the limitations periods had already expired. Likewise, even if we adopted
his views that the applicable limitations period for all claims is three years
(contention 5), and that no claim accrued before November 2000 (contention 6),
the limitations periods would still have expired in November 2003, several years
before he filed suit.
Accordingly, we confine the remainder of this opinion to one
issue—whether the limitations periods were tolled until American Family
informed Mr. Cahill of its violation of CAARA.
C. American Family’s Failure to Disclose Mr. Cahill’s
Entitlement to Enhanced PIP Benefits
-10-
Mr. Cahill argues that the limitations periods on his claims were tolled by
American Family’s failure to disclose to him that he was entitled to enhanced PIP
benefits. He appears to contend that because American Family did not make the
disclosure until June 2007, the limitations periods governing his claims should
not have begun to run until that date.
We disagree. To begin our analysis, it is important to explain precisely
what American Family allegedly failed to disclose. Mr. Cahill does not argue that
American Family concealed the terms of its policy, the communications between
American Family and the Cahill family regarding PIP coverage, the amount it had
paid in benefits, or any other historical fact. The only matter not disclosed to
Mr. Cahill was legal: the statutory mandate that American Family offer the
opportunity to purchase additional coverage and the availability of reformation of
the policy if the statutory mandate was violated.
But it is knowledge of facts, not of the law, that controls the application of
a statute of limitations. Under Colorado law a claim accrues when “the plaintiff
knows, or should know, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, all material facts
essential to show the elements of that cause of action.” Miller v. Armstrong
World Indus., 817 P.2d 111, 113 (Colo. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A plaintiff’s “knowledge of the legal theory supporting a claim does not
determine the date of accrual for that claim.” Murry v. GuideOne Specialty Mut.
Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 489, 494 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008); see Olson v. State Farm Mut.
-11-
Auto Ins. Co., 174 P.3d 849, 855 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (“[T]he relevant issue is
when a plaintiff discovers facts essential to the cause of action, not the legal
theory upon which the cause of action would be based.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). If a plaintiff need not know the law for a cause of action to accrue,
then the defendant’s failure to disclose the law should not delay the start of the
limitations period. Tolling should arise only when the defendant conceals
something that the plaintiff needed to know for his cause of action to accrue. We
might also point out that the days of Caligula are long past. Today, the law is not
concealed by inscribing it in small letters on tablets hung high, out of sight of the
populus. The law, including Colorado law, is public and accessible to all “in the
exercise of reasonable diligence.” Miller, 817 P.2d at 113 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
The authority cited by Mr. Cahill does not contradict what we have said.
He relies on Colorado statutes and two Colorado Supreme Court decisions. In his
view, the statutes required American Family to disclose to him its violation of
CAARA and his entitlement to enhanced PIP benefits. And he reads the two
court decisions as requiring equitable tolling whenever a defendant fails to
disclose information that it was required by law to disclose to the plaintiff. See
Garrett v. Arrowhead Improvement Ass’n, 826 P.2d 850 (Colo. 1992); Shell W.
E&P, Inc. v. Dolores County Bd. of Comm’rs, 948 P.2d 1002 (Colo. 1997). But
-12-
we reject his statutory arguments, and the cases that he cites are readily
distinguishable.
Mr. Cahill’s briefs on appeal assert that three Colorado statutory provisions
required American Family to disclose its CAARA violation. His opening brief
cites Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1104(1)(h)(I) and 10-4-706(4)(a). His reply brief
cites Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104(1)(a)(I), but not the provisions cited in his
opening brief. We address only § 10-3-1104(1)(h)(I). He did not preserve for
appeal any argument predicated on § 10-4-706(4)(a), because he did not cite or
otherwise rely on it in the district court. See Tele-Commc’ns, 104 F.3d at
1232–33. And his reliance on § 10-3-1104(1)(a)(I) in his reply brief on appeal
was too late. See Hill, 478 F.3d at 1250–51.
Not that Mr. Cahill’s opening brief makes much of an argument regarding
§ 10-3-1104(1)(h)(I). He merely asserts, without explanation, that the disclosure
was required by that section, which he describes as “prohibiting an insurer from
misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions relating to
coverages at issue.” Aplt. Br. at 13. His description of the provision is perfectly
accurate. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104(1)(h)(I) (“Misrepresenting pertinent
facts or insurance policy provisions relating to coverages at issue”). But we are
at a loss to see what fact (as opposed to a law) or policy provision was
misrepresented by American Family. See Olson, 174 P.3d at 857
-13-
(§ 10-3-1104(1)(h)(I) does not impose duty on insurer to inform insured when
limitations period would run).
As for the case law relied upon by Mr. Cahill, it does not support equitable
tolling for failure to disclose the law. In both Shell and Garrett what was
undisclosed (and required to be disclosed) was a fact. Shell owned an oil-and-gas
production unit that encompassed leaseholds in both Montezuma and Dolores
Counties. See Shell, 948 P.2d at 1005. Although it was required to file gas-
production information with each county for assessment of its ad-valorem-tax
obligations, it filed its unit-production-value information with only Montezuma
County from 1985 until 1990. See id. In 1992, after Shell began filing with both
counties, the Dolores County Treasurer issued Shell a tax notice for tax years
1985 through 1990 based on Shell’s unreported gas assets during that period. See
id. Shell paid the taxes for 1986 through 1990, but it contested the 1985
assessment. It argued that the six-year limitations period for assessing unpaid
taxes precluded Dolores County from assessing taxes for that year. See id. at
1006–07. The Colorado Supreme Court disagreed. The limitations period, it
held, was equitably tolled because Shell’s statutory violation in failing to inform
the county of its assets prevented a timely assessment by the county. See id. at
1008. According to the court, it would have been “manifestly unjust” for Shell to
assert a statute-of-limitations defense when its failure to file precluded the county
-14-
from obtaining notice of Shell’s gas production. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Garrett is similar. Garrett was injured while working for Arrowhead. See
Garrett, 826 P.2d at 851. He filed a workers’ compensation disability claim and
received benefits until September 10, 1986. His injury worsened and he
petitioned to reopen his claim so that he could seek additional disability benefits.
The right to reopen a workers’ compensation claim, however, was subject to a
two-year limitations period that ran from the date of the last disability payment,
and he did not file his petition until November 25, 1988, two months after the
deadline. See id. at 851–52. But he had an excuse: He had been awaiting a
medical report from his physician—a necessary component of a petition to
reopen. See id. at 852. Arrowhead and its disability insurer had received this
report on August 12, 1988, before the limitations period expired, but they had
failed to share this report with Garrett, as required by regulation. See id. The
Colorado Supreme Court held that the petition to reopen may have been timely
because of equitable tolling. It recognized that “[e]quity will toll a statute of
limitations if a party fails to disclose information that he is legally required to
reveal and the other party is prejudiced thereby.” Id. at 855. The court remanded
for further factual development.
Here, in contrast, Mr. Cahill is not seeking equitable tolling based on a
failure to disclose facts. And there would have been no sound reason for him to
-15-
refrain from checking what the law was. We therefore reject his equitable-tolling
argument.
III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Cahill’s claims.
-16-