 |
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 | Page 2 | Back to News |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Petition to reopen tolls running of statute of limitations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Express v. ICAO, 01CA2563 (June 20, 2002): Claimant sustained an admitted injury on March 17, 1994, when he fell into the back of a delivery truck. He was diagnosed with postconcussive syndrome, and his claim was deemed closed by final admission on July 29, 1994. On December 15, 1999, claimant petitioned to reopen the claim. He alleged mutual mistake of material fact and a worsened condition, and maintained that the fall caused a traumatic brain injury with previously-undiagnosed cognitive impairment. Employer moved to dismiss based upon the fact that claimant did not file an application for hearing on the issue of reopening until July of 2000, which was beyond the six-year statute of limitations period allowed in C.R.S. § 8-43-303(1). The ALJ denied the motion to dismiss and held that claimant tolled the statute of limitations when he filed the petition to reopen. The ALJ granted the petition to reopen and awarded claimant additional benefits.
The court of appeals affirmed. The court held that although the statute states that "[a]t any time within six years after the date of injury, the director or an administrative law judge may . . . review and reopen any award," the statute did not bar a claim simply on the basis that a petition to reopen has not been acted upon. Rather, filing a notice to have a claim reopened before the end of the period effectively tolls the running of the statute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserve and settlement information not discoverable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silva v. Basin Western, Inc., 01SA303 (June 3, 2002): Plaintiffs filed a personal injury claim against defendants in Denver District Court. During discovery, plaintiffs requested that defendant Basin produce the entire contents of its insurer's file. Basin produced about 1000 pages of investigatory materials, but redacted information regarding reserves and settlement authority, as well as eleven letters from Basin employees to adjusters for the insurer. Basin also provided a privilege log. Plaintiffs' motion to compel production of the contested information, as well as plaintiff's motion for attorney fees as a sanction against Basin for failure to disclose the information, were both granted by the trial court.
The supreme court disagreed with the trial court's rulings. The supreme court held that reserves and settlement authority were not relevant to plaintiffs' personal injury action and were not discoverable. The court noted that the purposes of discovery are not served by compelling the disclosure of reserves or settlement authority in a third-party personal injury action. Neither reserves, nor settlement authority reflect an admission by the insurance company that a claim is worth a particular amount of money. Statutory requirements, limitations in the evaluation, and bargaining tactics limit the usefulness of reserves and settlement authority as valuations of a claim. Thus, requests for production of reserves and settlement authority are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in a third-party personal injury tort claim. The supreme court also concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees to plaintiff as a discovery sanction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIP coverage need not be provided outside USA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gonzales v. Allstate Insurance Company, 01CA1507 (June 20, 2002): Plaintiffs were injured in a collision in Mexico, and were insured by Allstate under a policy that restricted coverage to auto accidents in the United States, its territories, Puerto Rico, and Canada. Plaintiffs filed personal injury protection (PIP) and uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) claims, which defendant (Allstate) denied on the basis that the policy did not cover injuries from a collision in Mexico. The trial court entered summary judgment for Allstate and plaintiffs appealed.
The court of appeals affirmed. While the provisions of the No-Fault Act (Act) did not preclude Allstate from providing coverage in Mexico, they also did not mandate that it do so. Because the Allstate policy provided PIP coverage within the jurisdictions required in C.R.S. § 10-4-711(3), its territorial restriction complied with the Act. The court of appeals also held that, as to the UM/UIM claims, because the statute does not require that a liability policy cover an accident that occurs in Mexico, there is no corollary requirement that more extensive UM/UIM coverage be provided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|