F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
OCT 31 2000
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
SIGNATURE DEVELOPMENT
COMPANIES, INC., a Colorado
corporation; and VILLAGE HOMES,
LTD., a Colorado corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. No. 99-1372
ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA, an Illinois
corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. NO. 97-WM-2688)
Kevin F. Amatuzio of Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio, Dusabek &
Parker, L.L.P., Denver, Colorado for the Appellants.
Laurence McHeffey of McElroy, Deutsch & Mulvaney, Denver, Colorado
for the Appellee (with Frank C. Porada on the briefs).
Before HENRY , BRISCOE , Circuit Judges and ALLEY , District Judge. *
*
The Honorable Wayne E. Alley, Senior District Judge for the Western
District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation.
HENRY , Circuit Judge.
Signature Development Companies, Inc. and Village Homes, Ltd., both
Colorado entities (collectively, “Signature”), appeal from the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Royal Insurance Company, an Illinois
corporation (“Royal”). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment to Royal as to Royal’s duty to indemnify and
we remand to the district court for calculation of Royal’s contribution as to
attorneys’ fees and costs of defense.
I. BACKGROUND
Signature is a developer of custom homes. Royal issued a general liability
insurance policy to Signature for the period January 1, 1989 to August 1, 1990;
after that time Signature changed insurance carriers to Aetna Casualty & Surety
Company, which later became Travelers Property Casualty Company
(“Travelers”).
In April 1996, a group of homeowners that lived in Highlands Ranch
Colorado sued Signature in Colorado state court, alleging that swelling and
expanding soils caused property damages to their homes purchased on or after
August 3, 1987 (the “Wernli litigation”). The plaintiffs, later certified as a class,
-2-
alleged several claims against Signature including negligence, breach of contract,
breach of warranties, and violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. A
separate lawsuit, filed by an individual family in a separate development and
county, alleged similar breaches (the “Long litigation’).
Signature notified Travelers of the Wernli and Long litigations within two
weeks of the filing of the Wernli litigation. Travelers retained the law firm of
Long & Jaudon to defend Signature, subject to a reservation of rights. Travelers
advised Signature that, because some of the allegations in the Wernli and Long
litigations preceded Travelers’s coverage period, prior carriers ought to receive
notification.
Signature’s counsel notified Royal about the Wernli and Long litigations on
June 24, 1996. On August 2, 1996, Royal notified Long & Jaudon that it was a
carrier for Signature from January 1, 1989 through January 1, 1990, for Signature,
and that “if it [wa]s determined that a defense [was] owed we will reimburse/issue
payment for all reasonable fees and cost incurred subsequent to the initial tender
of this matter.” Rec. vol. 2 at 00625. Royal later acknowledged that its liability
coverage actually extended through August 1, 1990, and no longer disputes this
fact.
On August 22, 1996, Royal sent Signature a letter outlining its formal
position on coverage, where it agreed to defend Signature in both litigations,
-3-
subject to a detailed reservation of rights. A reservation of rights enables an
insurer to assert future defenses based on noncoverage under the policy. See 14
Couch on Ins. § 202:38 (3d ed. 1996). It serves to provide the insured with
temporary protection, “even though it may turn out that the insured was not
entitled to such protection.” Id.
Specifically, Royal’s letter stated:
The Complaints are silent as to the timing of any alleged property
damage for which damages are sought. Royal expressly reserves its
right to disclaim coverage should it be determined that all or part of the
damages which may be obtained against the Insured are determined to
be on account of property damages which took place either before the
policy period or subsequent to the policy period.
Aple’s Supp. App. at 4. Royal also reserved the “right to seek reimbursement of
any monies spent in . . . defense costs.” Id. at 14. In addition, Royal disclaimed
coverage as to property damages resulting from incorrectly performed operations
by Signature or its contractors or subcontractors. See id. at 6.
On January 31, 1997, Signature’s counsel notified Royal that Travelers and
Signature were engaged in settlement negotiations with the plaintiffs and that
discovery had been stayed to encourage early settlement. Travelers and Signature
hoped to settle the pending litigation for approximately $4.0 million.
Specifically, Signature’s counsel mentioned a February 4, 1997, meeting at which
Royal was encouraged to attend. Royal neither responded to the letter nor
attended the meeting.
-4-
There were fifty-one homes that were closed upon and thus covered by
Royal’s policy during the period from January 1, 1989 through August 1, 1990,
while Royal was Signature’s insurance carrier. Royal’s investigator, Mr. Aiello,
concluded that these homes had experienced structural problems as a result of
expansive soil and that “a majority of these homes began experiencing soils
related problems within the first year.” Rec. vol. 2, tab 11, ex. 6 at R00313. In
addition, Mr. Aiello stated that the damages “could be a result of poor
workmanship” or “shifting of the structure.” Id. Royal calculated its coverage
obligation as $46,603.43, under an allocation method that Signature disputes. If
Mr. Aiello’s conclusion as to poor workmanship was true, the damages would fall
under Royal’s disclaimer as to incorrectly performed operations.
In a March 13, 1997 letter, Royal extended a $100,000.00 offer of
contribution to ongoing settlement negotiations, stating that “not all of the 51
homes have complained of damages.” Rec. vol. 3, tab 13.L, p. 560. Royal
tendered a check for $100,000.00 in full settlement of its obligation, which
Signature refused to accept. Royal included a restrictive endorsement on the
check under which Signature would likely forfeit any rights to further payment
from Royal.
The Wernli and Long litigations eventually settled for $4.0 million.
Travelers agreed to assume seventy-five percent of the settlement. Signature
-5-
sought the outstanding $1.0 million from Royal, which refused to tender this
amount. Signature, with the assistance of security from Travelers, paid the
balance to settle the case. Signature then brought this action against Royal
seeking declaratory relief and compensation for other damages.
In addition, Signature has obtained an assignment of Travelers’ claims
against Royal for contribution to the defense costs and attorneys fees, and seeks
reimbursement for those fees in this appeal. Royal sought summary judgment,
and the district court found that there was no evidence that any of the homes
sustained damage during Royal’s coverage period and that Royal did not breach
its duty to defend and as such granted summary judgment to Royal.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
applying the same legal standard used by the district court.” Simms v. Oklahoma
ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs. ,165 F.3d 1321, 1326
(10th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate “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.” Fed. R. Civ.
-6-
P. 56(c). “When applying this standard, we view the evidence and draw
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party.” Simms , 265 F.3d at 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
and apply Colorado law.
“A federal court sitting in diversity applies the substantive law . . . of the
forum state.” Barrett v. Tallon , 30 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1994). “The
interpretation of an insurance policy, like any written contract, presents a question
of law, and, therefore, is appropriate for summary judgment.” Tynan’s Nissan,
Inc. v. American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. , 917 P.2d 321, 323 (Colo. Ct. App.
1995). Accordingly, we look to Colorado law for guidance on the interpretation
of these insurance policies. We may affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment for any reason supported by the record. See Schwartz v. Celestial
Seasonings, Inc. , 124 F.3d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 1997).
B. Royal’s Duty to Defend
Signature contends that Royal breached its duty to defend Signature under
the policy by failing to fully discharge its duties under the policy. Specifically,
Signature argues that Royal (1) should have contributed to defense costs and (2)
because of its breach of its duty to defend, Royal should have been precluded
from relying on its coverage defenses. The district court found that Signature
-7-
produced no evidence that Royal refused to defend Signature. We shall consider
each contention in turn.
1. Breach of Duty to Defend .
Under Colorado law, “an insurer’s duty to defend arises when the
underlying complaint against the insurer alleges any facts that might fall within
the coverage of the policy.” Hecla Mining Co. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co. , 811
P.2d 1083, 1089 (Colo. 1991) (en banc). The duty to defend is separate from and
broader than the duty to indemnify. See id. Furthermore, where the insurer’s
duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings, “but the allegations do state a
claim which is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage,” the insurer
must abide by its duty to defend the claim. Id.
As to its duty to defend, Royal’s policy stated: “We will have the right and
duty to defend any ‘suit’ seeking [those sums that the insured becomes legally
obligated to pay as damages].” Rec. vol. III at R01053. The allegations in the
Wernli and Long litigations were based on Signature’s negligence and breach of
warranty, which might be “occurrences” under Royal’s policy as defined therein.
An “occurrence” could include negligence and breach of warranty. See id. at
R01051. The district court concluded that Signature “produced no evidence that
-8-
Royal refused to defend it.” Rec. vol. I, tab 7, at 7-8 (Dist. Ct. Order filed July
22, 1999).
Signature contends, however, that Royal did not uphold its duty to defend
or to participate in settlement proceedings. First, Signature states that Royal had
agreed to split defense costs and yet ignored subsequent written demands for
those costs. Colorado law recognizes that primary coverage insurers “are duty
bound to defend the insured and are required to contribute their pro rata share” to
the defense costs. National Cas. Co. v. Great S.W. Fire Ins. Co. , 833 P.2d 741,
747-48 (Colo. 1992). Signature, relying in part on Lujan v. Gonzales , 501 P.2d
673, 677 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972), also contends that Royal may not rely on the
defense provided by Travelers and may not as a result shirk from its defense costs
obligations. See id. (holding that insurer’s refusal to defend was breach of its
duty to defend, notwithstanding the defense rendered by the other insurer).
Finally Signature contends that Royal failed to complete a reasonable and prudent
investigation of all aspects of the underlying case, as required by Aetna Cas. &
Sur. Co. v. Kornbluth , 471 P.2d 609, 612 (Colo. Ct. App. 1970).
Royal counters Signature’s argument by stressing the relevance of its
reservation of rights under Colorado law. Royal does not dispute that its duty to
defend was triggered and argues that it agreed to defend Signature as to property
damages that occurred while Royal was Signature’s carrier. In fact, Royal
-9-
acknowledged its duty to defend, but undertook the duty subject to a reservation
of rights. See Hecla Mining Co. , 811 P.2d at 1089 (stating “[t]he appropriate
course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no obligation to
defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under a reservation of its rights to
seek reimbursement should the facts at trial prove that the incident resulting in
liability was not covered by the policy”).
Royal asserts that it upheld its defense obligation: it “appointed” the law
firm of Long & Jaudon, and conducted a thorough and diligent internal
investigation as to its duty to indemnify. Royal argues that the record indicates
that it was prepared to reimburse Travelers for its defense costs as required under
Colorado law. See Rec. vol. 2, tab 11.2 (Depo. of Donalee Pelovsky, Royal
claims adjuster supervisor); National Cas. Co. , 833 P.2d at 747-48. Royal set up
a reserve for the claim and avers it was prepared to contribute its share of defense
costs and indemnity payment to the extent Signature’s claims fell within the
coverage of Royal’s policy. Royal contends it paid no bills because Travelers
paid defense counsel’s bills. Royal received no invoices until they were produced
in this litigation.
But we agree with Signature that although Royal pursued the above actions,
these actions do not amount to an active independent defense of Signature’s
claims. We disagree with the district court’s conclusion, and hold that Royal
-10-
breached its duty to defend by not fully discharging its duty. Rather than
discharging its duty to defend, Royal was nonresponsive to settlement overtures,
failed to communicate with its insured, and failed to fully cooperate in settlement
negotiations. See Kornbluth , 471 P.2d at 612. Although Colorado courts have
not specifically addressed the issue, we agree that “[t]he fortuitous existence of
another insurer who [wa]s willing to meet its own obligations” did not excuse
Royal from discharging its duty to defend. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Coronet Ins.
Co. , 358 N.E.2d 914, 917 (Ill. Ct. App. 1976); see Lujan , 501 P.2d at 677.
Finally, the district court’s determination of noncoverage as to Royal’s policy
might have been a defense to the claims in the underlying action, but the district
court’s noncoverage ruling did not excuse Royal from fully defending the claims
in the first instance.
2. Damages from Royal’s Breach of its Duty to Defend
Having determined that Royal breached its duty to defend, we turn now to
what damages Signature has incurred. As determined above, the presence of
another insurer will not protect Royal from breach of its duty to defend. Again we
are faced with a issue that Colorado courts have not squarely addressed. Royal
reminds us that Signature received a competent defense and it voluntarily entered
an apparently favorable and reasonable settlement agreement. See, e.g.,
Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Western Guar. Fund Servs. , 924 P.2d 1107, 1113
-11-
(Colo. Ct. App. 1996) (holding where insureds “were not undefended,” alternate
insurer’s “refusal to defend . . . caused the [insureds] no harm”). Signature’s
acceptance of a portion of Travelers’ right to attorneys’ fees from Royal is not
evidence of damages flowing from Royal’s breach. When Signature accepted the
assignment, it had already received the reservation of rights, and was aware that
Royal might be entitled to reimbursement had Royal paid any fees.
However, to hold that Royal is insulated from contributing any defense
costs because Royal notified Signature of its reservation of rights to seek
reimbursement should we determine that the events were covered by Royal’s
policy would amount to permitting the insurer to do indirectly what it cannot do
directly. See National Cas. Co. , 833 P.2d at 747 (stating that to find insurer not
responsible for contribution “would be to reward insurer for refusing to honor its
contractual obligations by failing to defend a lawsuit brought against the insured
that falls within the terms of the policy”). Hecla Mining Co. demands that an
insurer notify the insured of its reservation of rights and requires the insurer to
“provide a defense.” 811 P.2d at 1089; see also State v. Pacific Indem. Co. , 63
Cal. App. 4th 1535, 1546-47 (1998) (“The insurer must preserve its right to seek
reimbursement by undertaking the defense of its insured upon an express
reservation of rights, a reservation the insurer may unilaterally impose.”)
(emphasis added).
-12-
Signature had a contract right to have actions against it defended by Royal,
at Royal’s expense, subject to Royal’s reservation of its rights. A reservation of
rights agreement serves to “furnish temporary protection to an insured, even
though [as in this case] it may turn out that the insured was not entitled to such
protection.” 14 Couch on Ins. § 202:38. We have held Royal in breach of that
contractual duty because Royal offered little or no protection to its insured.
Further, Royal did not seek a declaratory judgment as to its duty after the
underlying litigation was resolved. See Hecla Mining Co. , 811 P.2d at 1089
(“The appropriate course of action for an insurer who believes that it is under no
obligation to defend, is to provide a defense to the insured under a reservation of
its rights to seek reimbursement should the facts at trial prove that the incident
resulting in liability was not covered by the policy, or to file a declaratory
judgment action after the underlying case has been adjudicated.”). We cannot
allow Royal to benefit from its breach, for to do so compels the insured to bear
the expense of the litigation, and Signature is actually no better off financially
that if it never had the contract right of a defense from Royal. See National Cas.
Co. , 833 P.2d at 747; cf. Willis Corroon Corp. v. The Home Ins. Co. , 203 F.3d
449, 453 (7th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (holding that, under Illinois law, where insurer
“mishandled a defense which it undertook under a reservation of rights” and “left
[insured] in the lurch” to allow insurer to “blatant[ly] manipulat[e] the law” and
-13-
file a “twelfth-hour” declaratory judgment action would “encourage the worst
possible behavior.”). A natural and proximate result of Royal’s breach was the
participation by Traveler’s as the only insurer in the continued litigation and
settlement proceedings. Traveler’s subsequently assigned its rights to seek
contribution from Royal to Signature. We hold that Signature is therefore entitled
to receive from Royal a pro rata portion of attorney fees, costs and expenses
incurred in reaching settlement in the underlying litigation. See National Cas.
Co. , 833 P.2d at 747-48.
3. Royal’s Right to Raise Coverage Defenses
Signature contends that because Royal failed to adequately defend under a
reservation of rights, Royal is estopped from challenging coverage under the
policy. Colorado subscribes to the majority view that an “insurer who believes
that it is under no obligation to defend” must provide a defense if the allegations
in the underlying complaint might fall within coverage of the policy. Hecla
Mining Co. , 811 P.2d at 1089.
As discussed above, an insurer “may provide a defense subject to a
reservation of rights to seek reimbursement should the facts at trial provide that
the incident resulting in liability was not covered by the policy.” Id. ; see
Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. , 924 P.2d at 1113 (stating that insurer’s “letter was
-14-
sufficient to reserve insurer’s right to contest insured’s claim for payment of
defense costs”). The duty to defend continues until the “insurer can establish that
the allegations in the complaint are solely and entirely within the exclusion in the
insurance policy.” Hecla Mining Co. , 811 P.2d at 1090. An insurer is not
excused from its duty to defend unless there is “no factual or legal basis on which
the insurer might eventually be held liable to indemnify the insured.” Id. at 1090.
Although Colorado courts have stressed the distinction between the duty to
defend and the duty to indemnify, they have not specifically addressed whether an
insurer who breaches its duty to defend is consequently estopped from
challenging the duty to indemnify. Signature contends that we should follow the
minority view, and hold that Royal is estopped from challenging coverage See,
e.g., Underwriters at Lloyds v. Denali Seafoods , 927 F.2d 459, 462-65 (9th Cir.
1991) (applying Washington law and holding that insurer who breaches duty to
defend cannot contest coverage); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Vigilant Ins.
Co. , 919 F.2d 235, 240 (4th Cir. 1990) (same, applying North Carolina law);
Flannery v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 49 F. Supp.2d 1223, 1227 (D. Colo. 1999)
(considering majority and minority viewpoints as to ability of an insurer to
contest coverage when it has breached duty to defend). Royal argues that we
should adopt the majority view that a breach of the duty to defend is a breach of
contract separate and apart from the duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Western
-15-
Alliance Ins. Co. v. Northern Ins. Co. of N.Y. , 176 F.3d 825, 828 (5th Cir. 1999)
(applying Texas law, noting that “[e]ven if an insurer breaches the broad duty to
defend, it is not in all respects estopped from challenging the duty to indemnify
and the duty to indemnity may turn on the facts in the underlying lawsuit, not the
allegations of the complaint”).
We consider “state court decisions, decisions of other states, federal
decisions, and the general weight and trend of authority” in anticipating how the
Colorado Supreme Court will address an issue. Armijo v. Ex Cam, Inc. , 843 F.2d
406, 407 (10th Cir. 1988). Colorado has repeatedly recognized the separate and
distinct nature of the duties to defend and indemnify. We are inclined to agree
with the District Court of Colorado’s analysis and conclusion in Flannery , 49 F.
Supp.2d at 227, that Colorado will likely join the majority of jurisdictions in
holding that an insurer who breaches its duty to defend may contest coverage.
This approach is consistent with the doctrinal distinction between the duty to
defend and the separate duty to indemnify. See, e.g., Hecla Mining Co. , 811 P.2d
at 1086; Flannery , 49 F. Supp.2d at 1228-29 (noting that Colorado law suggests
that an “insurer does not forfeit its right to contest coverage when it has breached
its obligation to defend the insured”) ; Colorado Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Snowbarger , 934 P.2d 909, 911 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997) (“Moreover, a liability
insurer has no duty either to defend or to indemnify if it can establish that the
-16-
factual allegations in the underlying complaint that is solely and entirely within
the policy’s exclusions.”) . Thus, when an insurer breaches its duty to defend, the
insured is entitled to receive compensation for any prejudice the insured may have
suffered as a result of the breach. Hamlin, Inc. v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
Co. , 86 F.3d 93, 94-95 (7th Cir. 1996) (giving example of prejudice suffered by
insured and stating “If the lack of a defender causes the insured to throw in the
towel in the suit against it, the insurer may find itself obligated to pay the entire
resulting judgment or settlement even if it can prove lack of coverage.”); see
Denali Seafoods, Inc. , 927 F.2d at 464 (offering instances in which insured might
be able to establish prejudice based upon insured’s reliance of insurer’s defense).
Because we hold that Royal may raise coverage defenses where there exists
a duty to defend, we next consider the district court’s grant of summary judgment
to Royal based upon the absence of evidence that any damages occurred during
Royal’s policy period.
C. Royal’s Alleged Breach of its Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
As to Royal’s coverage obligations, Signature contends that Royal breached
its duty of good faith and fair dealing as to settlement proceedings. Signature
claims that it produced sufficient evidence to trigger Royal’s implied duties of
good faith and fair dealing as to settlement proceedings and that Royal breached
-17-
these duties. The district court determined that there was no evidence as to what
damages flowed from Royal’s alleged breaches because Signature failed to
present any evidence that any of the subject homes suffered damage during
Royal’s policy period. Signature contends it produced such evidence, relying
primarily on (1) the slow and progressive nature of the damages; (2) the reports
from Royal’s adjuster that provide evidence of these damages; and (3) Royal’s
offers of settlement and reserve ratios that serve as admissions of liability.
1. Progressive damages
Signature first submits that the progressive and continuous nature of
damages to the subject homes is evidence that property damage resulted in
“physical injury to the tangible property” under the policy. Rec. vol. 3 at R01060.
Signature offers two cases to support progressive damages in the subject homes:
Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Wallis & Cos. , 986 P.2d 924 (Colo. 1999) and
American Employers Ins. Co. v. Pinkard Constr. , 806 P.2d 954, 955 (Colo. App.
1990). Neither case, however, bolsters Signature’s arguments.
In Wallis & Cos. , environmental damages necessitating remediation were
sustained over a period of several years. The Colorado Supreme Court focused on
the allocation formula that should be applied to multiple insurers should a
particular insurer be found liable at trial. See 986 P.2d at 935-36. Although
-18-
potentially relevant to provide an allocation method should coverage be
established, Wallis & Cos. has no application where there is no evidence that the
homes covered by Royal sustained damage during the coverage period.
Next, American Employers involved continuous damages to a roof that was
insured by multiple carriers. The court noted that “[w]hen actual damages were
sustained is difficult to assess in a situation in which, as here, the property
damage occurred progressively over a period of time.” 806 P.2d at 956. The
evidence of damages, “although not immediately apparent . . . shows that
progressive and continuous deterioration of the roof infected the integrity of the
structure causing actual property damage during the respective policy periods.”
Id. Although it provides a helpful definition of progressive damages, American
Employers presupposes irrefutable evidence of damages during the relevant
coverage period: “It is undisputed that corrosion occurred during each policy
period.” Consequently, “we conclude that there was an ‘occurrence’ triggering
coverage under each policy.” Id.
In contrast, we have here only the report of Royal’s independent
investigator, which does not establish specific damages to any of the homes
covered under the Royal policy. Mr. Aiello’s report in fact suggested that the
damage may have resulted from “poor workmanship” which would be excluded
-19-
under the policy. Rec. vol. II at R00314. Without more, we cannot determine
that there exists genuine issue of material fact as to when the damages occurred.
In its response to Royal’s motion for summary judgment, Signature averred
that “some of the Royal homes . . . sustained significant damage.” Rec. vol. 2,
tab 11 at 6. Signature provided only one address that sustained approximately
$30,000 in damage and required a new floor. This home was at initially covered
by Royal’s policy, but Signature provided no evidence that the damage occurred
during Royal’s policy period.
2. Royal’s Adjusters’ Reports
Signature also relies heavily on the one report and one letter from Royal’s
adjustment team as admissions of Royal’s liability. Signature cites Mr. Aiello’s
report for stating that “a majority of [the 51 potentially covered homes] began
experiencing soil related problems within the first year.” Rec. vol. 2 at R00314.
As noted above, however, Signature does not address the adjuster’s suggestions
that the damage may have resulted from poor workmanship or shifting of the
structure, which may have been excluded from coverage. We agree with the
district court that even viewed in a light most favorable to Signature, the
proffered evidence is not sufficient to create a reasonable factual issue.
3. Royal’s Settlement Offer and Reserve.
-20-
Signature also suggests that Royal’s $100,000.00 settlement offer, coupled
with Royal’s internal estimated exposure of $400,000.00, is an admission of
liability. Compromise or settlement offers are not admissions of liability and
Signature cites no authority to suggest otherwise. See, e.g., Martin v. Principal
Cas. Ins. Co. , 8535 P.2d 505 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991), rev’d on other grounds by
Budget Rent-A-Car Corp. v. Martin , 855 P.2d 1377 (Colo. 1993); Colo. R. Evid.
308. We are also unwilling to infer that “settlement authority invariably
constitutes a final, objective assessment of a claim’s worth to which an insurer
may be held on penalty of bad faith.” Kosierowski v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 51 F.
Supp.2d 583, 592 (E.D. Pa. 1999). See also Voland v. Farmers Ins. Co. , 943
P.2d 808, 812 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997) (stating that “[c]ontrary to plaintiff's
contention, that the carriers considered her claim’s ‘fair value’ to be $30,000 and
therefore offered to settle for that amount does not mean they acknowledged that
was ‘the minimal amount the insurer’s own adjuster ha[d] evaluated as being
owed to the insured.’”). In fact, even an insurer that has entered into a settlement
agreement may be able to recover where the insurer defended pursuant to a
reservation of rights. See e.g. , Maryland Cas. Co. v. Imperial Contracting Co. ,
212 Cal. App. 3d 712 (4th Dist. 1989). Similarly, Royal’s reserve calculation is
merely an amount it set aside to cover potential future liabilities. See, e.g. ,
Black’s Law Dictionary 1309 (7th ed. 1999) (defining policy reserve as “[a]n
-21-
insurance company’s reserve that represents the difference between net premiums
and expected claims for a given year”). We agree with the district court that
Signature is unable to establish damages it incurred from Royal’s alleged breach
of good faith and fair dealing as to its duty to settle.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Royal as to Royal’s duty to indemnify; we REMAND to the
district court to calculate Royal’s contribution as to attorneys’ fees and costs of
defense.
-22-