August 22, 2017

Discovering Discovery: Building Your Case, Deposition Tips, Expert Witnesses, and More

“Reduced to its essence, discovery is the process of identifying, collecting, producing and/or receiving relevant, nonprivileged materials in connection with pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation. With the advent of notice pleading, civil discovery provides access to the relevant information that litigants and their counsel require to make informed decisions about the merits of their case and the potential for settlement.” -Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer

Discovery is a crucial component of every litigation case. In the last 10 years, civil litigation has changed significantly. The proliferation of electronic data and new rules on both the state and federal level create increasingly difficult challenges for preserving, managing, and producing electronically stored information. Conducting discovery outside Colorado has become mainstream as civil litigation has become more national—even global.

This Friday, CBA-CLE will debut the newest title in our litigation library, Discovery in Colorado, at a full-day program, “Discovering Discovery.” Discovery in Colorado is a practical guide to discovery that brings to life the application of the Colorado and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the discovery process. Discovery in Colorado was written by a variety of different practitioners, overseen by Magistrate Judge Nina Y. Wang and Natalie Hanlon Leh, Esq. Attorneys and judges with backgrounds in private, in-house, and government practice authored individual chapters.

Learn different approaches to discovery and hear distinct perspectives from some of the most experienced trial attorneys and judges in Colorado. Each class attendee receives Discovery in Colorado, 1st Edition, as course materials. Explore the ever-changing state of discovery through this valuable course and companion book. Register using the links below, or call (303) 860-0608.

 

CLELogo

CLE Program: Discovering Discovery

This CLE presentation will occur on Friday, July 28, 2017, at the CLE Large Classroom (1900 Grant St., 3rd Floor) from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. Register for the live program here and the webcast here. You may also call (303) 860-0608 to register.

Can’t make the live program? Order the homestudy here — Video OnDemandMP3 Audio

Colorado Court of Appeals: Attorney Must Assume Financial and Ethical Responsibility in Order to Share Fees

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Scott R. Larson, P.C. v. Grinnan on Thursday, June 15, 2017.

Attorney Fee Dispute—Referral Fees—Division of Fees.

Grinnan is a general practitioner with limited experience in personal injury cases. Grinnan’s friend Kelley asked Grinnan to represent him in a personal injury case. Grinnan obtained Kelley’s approval to involve Scott Larson., P.C. in the case, and Larson entered into a contingency fee agreement with the Kelley family. As relevant here, the agreement identified Grinnan as “associated counsel,” stated that Grinnan would be paid a percentage of Larson’s fee “not to exceed 100%,” and provided that Larson was responsible for paying case expenses. Grinnan was not a signatory to the agreement.

Larson brought claims against various entities and settled with one early in the case. From Larson’s $333,333 fee on this settlement, he sent Grinnan a check for $50,000. After three years of litigation, the case settled. Based on the settlements, the contingent fee agreement entitled Larson to a fee of $3,216,666.67. Larson had incurred about $300,000 in costs.

Larson and Grinnan couldn’t agree on how to divide the contingent fee. Grinnan entered his appearance, and the court granted his request that all attorney fees paid to Larson be placed in a restricted interest bearing account. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a detailed written order allocating the attorney fees. The trial court declined to divide the fees in proportion to services and found that Grinnan had assumed joint responsibility for the litigation. The court divided the fees by awarding Grinnan 20% of the $333,333.34 from the first settlement and 12.5% of the $2,883,333.33 fee from the other two settlements. The court also awarded Grinnan prejudgment interest at the rate of 8% from the date the settlement checks were issued until final judgment entered on the fees allocated to him. It also awarded Larson interest on the fees placed in the restricted account less the fees awarded to Grinnan (as a wrongful withholding). The court declined to award costs, finding that neither lawyer was the prevailing party.

On appeal, Larson asserted that Grinnan never assumed joint responsibility because he did not assume responsibility for the representation as a whole. The court of appeals found that Grinnan had assumed one of the two components of joint responsibility—financial responsibility for the case—because of Grinnan’s exposure to liability for any malpractice of Larson. A remand was necessary to determine whether he also assumed ethical responsibility, the second component, on which the court had made no findings.

As guidance to the trial court on remand, the court analyzed the ethical responsibility issue. It concluded that a referring lawyer must: actively monitor the progress of the case; make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm of the lawyer to whom the case was referred has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct; and remain available to the client to discuss the case and provide independent judgment as to any concerns the client may have that the lawyer to whom the case was referred is acting in conformity with the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On remand, if the court finds that Grinnan assumed ethical responsibility, the court’s fee award will stand, subject to appeal by Larson. If the court finds that Grinnan did not assume ethical responsibility, he is only entitled to fees in proportion to the services he performed, with the referral fees to be reallocated to Larson, subject to appeal by Grinnan.

The court concluded that Grinnan failed to preserve issues he raised on cross-appeal.

Grinnan also contended that the trial court erred in finding a wrongful withholding.  The court found no error in the trial court’s award of prejudgment interest to Larson based on Grinnan’s wrongful withholding.

The court also noted that on remand the trial court could reconsider its decision not to award costs based on its findings on ethical responsibility.

The attorney fee award was vacated, the cross-appealed rulings were affirmed, and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Dog Owner Owes No Duty of Care to Child who was Scared by Dogs and Ran Into Street

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in N.M. v. Trujillo on Monday, June 26, 2017.

Negligence—Duty of Care—Nonfeasance—Special Relationships—C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5).

This case required the supreme court to determine whether respondent, a dog owner, owed a duty of care to petitioner, a child who became frightened when respondent’s dogs rushed at respondent’s front yard fence and who, although not touched by the fenced-in dogs, ran into the street and was struck and injured by a passing van. Because petitioner’s negligence claim against respondent was predicated on alleged nonfeasance, or failure to act, and because the case is distinguishable from cases in which a dangerous or vicious animal attacks and directly injures someone, petitioner was required to plead a special relationship between himself and respondent to establish the duty of care necessary to support his negligence claim. Petitioner did not, however, plead such a special relationship. Accordingly, the court concluded that, as a matter of law, respondent owed no duty of care to petitioner and thus the district court properly dismissed petitioner’s negligence claim against respondent. The court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Agent May Exercise Apparent or Implied Authority to Reject UM/UIM Insurance Coverage

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Johnson on Monday, June 5, 2017.

Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Insurance—Agency—Implied Authority.

This case presented two questions for the supreme court’s consideration. First, does the uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) statute, C.R.S. § 10-4-609, require each named insured to reject UM/UIM coverage, or is one named insured’s rejection binding on all? And second, did the legislature, by enacting C.R.S. § 10-4-609, abrogate the common law agency principles of implied authority and apparent authority? The court started with the second question and concluded that nothing in the language of C.R.S. § 10-4-609 precludes an agent from exercising either apparent or implied authority to reject UM/UIM coverage on behalf of a principal. Turning to the facts of this case, the court concluded that the evidence presented at trial established that respondent Johnson delegated to his friend the task of purchasing insurance for their jointly owned car and that, in undertaking this task, the friend had implied authority to reject, and did in fact reject, UM/UIM coverage on Johnson’s behalf. Based on this conclusion, the court found it unnecessary to address the first question presented. The court thus reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Non-negligently Constructed and Maintained Playground Equipment Cannot be “Dangerous Condition” for CGIA Waiver Purposes

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J v. Loveland on Monday, May 22, 2017.

Governmental Immunity—Waiver of Governmental Immunity—Dangerous Condition.

In this case, the supreme court considered the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act’s “recreation-area waiver,” which deprives a public entity of immunity in an action for injuries resulting from a dangerous condition of a public facility located in a recreation area. Specifically, the court examined the meaning of “dangerous condition” under the recreation-area waiver. The court held that a non-negligently constructed and maintained piece of playground equipment cannot be a “dangerous condition” under the waiver. Given this holding, the facts respondents alleged cannot show that a “dangerous condition” existed in this case. The court therefore concluded that the recreation-area waiver did not apply and petitioner retained its immunity from suit. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded to that court to reinstate the trial court’s order.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Vacation and Sick Leave are Pecuniary Losses Compensable to Victim Under Restitution Act

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Perez on Thursday, April 20, 2017.

RestitutionVacationSick LeaveProximate CausePecuniary Loss.

Perez pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury. After the court sentenced Perez, the prosecution requested restitution based on the victim missing 55 days of work after the accident, including use of vacation and sick leave. Perez argued that the victim’s expenditure of leave was not compensable and that he was not the proximate cause of the victim’s losses because he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury but not to any crime establishing that he was the proximate cause of the victim’s injury. The district court held that Perez was the proximate cause of the victim’s losses and ordered restitution.

On appeal, Perez claimed that the district court erred in holding that his actions were the proximate cause of the victim’s injuries because it did not make an express finding on the issue. The court’s rejection of Perez’s proximate cause contention necessarily implied that it found Perez to be the proximate cause of the victim’s injuries, and the record supports that finding. The conduct underlying the charge of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in serious bodily injury was Perez hitting the victim with his car. The crime for which Perez pleaded guilty arose from acts that injured the victim. Therefore, there was no error in this finding.

Perez next contended that vacation and sick leave are not compensable under the Restitution Act (the Act) because the loss of leave is not a pecuniary loss. The court of appeals concluded that expenditure of vacation and sick leave is a loss of employee benefits comparable to lost wages that is compensable under the Act.

Lastly, Perez contended that the court erred in calculating his restitution to the victim by five work days. The award of an additional five days of missed work was not supported by the record and results in a windfall to the victim, and must be reduced.

The order was affirmed in part and the case was remanded for reduction of the restitution award.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Bills Enacting Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act, Exemption from Mandatory Advisement Requirements, and More Signed

On Thursday, April 13, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed ten bills into law. To date, he has signed 147 bills into law this 2017 legislative session. Some of the bills signed Thursday include a bill adopting the Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act, a bill granting immunity to a person who renders emergency assistance to a person or animal in a locked vehicle, a bill exempting certain traffic violations from the mandatory advisement requirements for municipal judges, and more. The bills signed Thursday are summarized here.

  • HB 17-1021“Concerning an Employer’s Violation of Wage Laws,” by Rep. Jessie Danielson and Sen. John Cooke. The bill clarifies that information obtained by the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics that relates to a finding of a violation of wage laws is not confidential and shall be released to the public or for use in a court proceeding, unless the Director of the Division makes a determination that the information includes specific information that is a trade secret.
  • HB 17-1081“Concerning Authority to Offer In-state Tuition Classification at State-supported Institutions of Higher Education for Athletes Training in Colorado in Programs Approved by the United States Olympic Committee,” by Rep. Dan Nordberg and Sen. Stephen Fenberg. The bill allows a state-supported institution of higher education to charge in-state tuition to an athlete residing anywhere in Colorado and training in an elite level program in Colorado approved by the United States Olympic committee and the governing body of an Olympic, Paralympic, Pan American, or Parapan American sport.
  • HB 17-1083“Concerning an Exemption for Certain Traffic Violations of the Requirement that a Municipal Judge Inform a Defendant of Certain Rights,” by Rep. Larry Liston and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill excludes cases involving traffic infractions or violations for which the penalty is only a fine and for which jail is not a possibility from the requirement that municipal judges inform defendants of certain rights.
  • HB 17-1125“Concerning Eliminating the Duty of the Division of Correctional Industries to Provide Certain Services for the State’s Correctional Facilities,” by Reps. Dan Nordberg & Faith Winter and Sens. Jim Smallwood & Cheri Jahn. The bill removes a requirement that the Division of Correctional Industries in the Department of Corrections establish programs for vehicle maintenance, physical plant and facility maintenance, and food and laundry services for each of the state’s correctional facilities.
  • HB 17-1144“Concerning Amendments to the Automatic Cash Fund Funding Mechanism for Payment of Future Costs Attributable to Certain of the State’s Capital Assets,” by Rep. Daneya Esgar and Sen. Randy Baumgardner. The bill requires the General Assembly to include an annual depreciation-lease equivalent payment line item payable from the cash fund that is the funding source for the capital construction appropriation in the operating section of the annual general appropriation act for each state agency.
  • HB 17-1145“Concerning Authorization for Amateur Winemakers to Enter Wines in Organized Events,” by Rep. Leslie Herod and Sen. Bob Gardner. The bill authorizes amateur winemakers to enter their wine in organized events, such as contests, tastings, or judgings at licensed premises.
  • HB 17-1179“Concerning Immunity for a Person who Renders Emergency Assistance from a Locked Vehicle,” by Reps. Lori Saine & Joann Ginal and Sens. Lois Court & Vicki Marble. The bill provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for a person who forcibly enters a locked vehicle for the purpose of rendering assistance to an at-risk person or animal.
  • HB 17-1194“Concerning Technical Changes Relating to the Operation of Pathways in Technology Early College High Schools,” by Rep. Mike Foote and Sen. John Cooke. The bill amends the definition of a pathways in technology early college (p-tech) high school to include a p-tech program that operates within a host school.
  • HB 17-1196“Concerning Changes to the Training Requirements for Applicants for Licensure under the ‘Barber and Cosmetologist Act’,” by Rep. Jeni Arndt and Sen. Kevin Priola. The bill requires the Director of the Division of Professions and Occupations in the Department of Regulatory Agencies to promulgate rules for applicants for cosmetologist or barber licensure to furnish proof of training, not to exceed 50 credits or 1,500 contact hours.
  • SB 17-154“Concerning  the ‘Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act’, by Sen. Bob Gardner and Rep. Cole Wist. The bill adopts in Colorado the Uniform Unsworn Declarations Act,expands the uniform law to include domestic unsworn declarations as contemplated, and clarifies that the act applies only to the use of unsworn declarations in state courts.

For a list of all Governor Hickenlooper’s 2017 legislative actions, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Contract Exception to the Collateral Source Statute is Applicable in Post-Verdict Proceedings to Reduce Damages

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Pressey ex rel. Pressey v. Children’s Hospital Colorado on Thursday, March 9, 2017.

Medical Malpractice—Health Care Availability Act—Damages Cap—Medicaid—Collateral Source Statute—Contract Exception—Pre-majority Economic Damages—Minor—Statute of Limitations.

Naomi Pressey (Naomi), by and through her conservator Jennifer Pressey, sued Children’s Hospital Colorado (Hospital) for negligence. The case was tried to a jury, which found the Hospital negligent and awarded Naomi $17,839,784.60. The damages award included past medical expenses, past noneconomic losses, future medical expenses, future lost earnings, and future noneconomic losses. After trial, the court reduced the damages to $1 million based on the legislative directive in C.R.S. § 13-64-302(1)(b) of the Health Care Availability Act (HCAA). The court approved Naomi’s motion to exceed the damages cap for good cause and entered judgment in her favor for $14,341,538.60.

On appeal, the Hospital argued that the court erred in excluding evidence of Medicaid benefits and private insurance available to Naomi in the post-verdict proceeding to exceed the damages cap. Sound public policy supports both the cap and the contract exception to the collateral source statute. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the contract exception to the collateral source statute is applicable in post-verdict proceedings to reduce damages in medical malpractice actions under the HCAA. Medicaid benefits are paid on behalf of the injured party and are thus collateral sources subject to the contract exception. Accordingly, the trial court correctly did not consider Medicaid payments and private insurance in determining whether to exceed the HCAA damages cap.

The Hospital also argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because Naomi failed to establish that she, rather than her parents, was entitled to her pre-majority economic damages. Parents own the legal right to seek reimbursement for a minor’s pre-majority economic damages. Here, Naomi’s parents did not relinquish this right and failed to institute a claim within the applicable statute of limitations.

The Hospital further argued that irrespective of the evidence of Medicaid and private insurance benefits, Naomi did not establish good cause to exceed the damages cap. The trial court considered a multitude of factors in concluding there was good cause. Its decision was not manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, and was not a misapplication of the law.

Lastly, the Hospital argued that Naomi received a duplicate award for future medical care and lost future earnings. The court concluded there is record support for the trial court’s findings that the damage award does not overlap with the future lost earnings award.

That portion of the judgment awarding pre-majority economic damages to Naomi was reversed. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. The case was remanded for recalculation of the total amounts owed by the Hospital.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Acknowledgment of Employer’s Vicarious Liability Bars Direct Negligence Claims Against Employer

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Ferrer v. Okbamicael on Monday, February 27, 2017.

Tort—Respondeat Superior Liability—Direct Negligence.

In this original proceeding under C.A.R. 21, the Colorado Supreme Court reviewed trial court orders dismissing plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against an employer that acknowledged vicarious liability for its employee’s negligence, and denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint to add exemplary damages against the employer and the employee. The court adopted the rule articulated in McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 19 822 (Mo. 1995), which held that an employer’s admission of vicarious liability for an employee’s negligence bars a plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against the employer. The court declined to adopt an exception to this rule where the plaintiff seeks exemplary damages against the employer. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in dismissing plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against the employer or in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint to add exemplary damages. The court therefore affirmed the trial court orders and discharged the rule to show cause.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Penalty of Two Times Covered Benefit for Insurance Bad Faith Upheld

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Nibert v. Geico Casualty Co. on Thursday, February 23, 2017.

Bad Faith—C.R.S. § 10-3-1116—Jury Instructions—Statutory Delay—Attorney Fees.

Nibert and her husband were injured when a car collided with their motorcycle. As relevant to this appeal, Nibert had an underinsured motorist (UIM) policy through Geico Casualty Co. (Geico) with a $25,000 coverage limit. Geico offered Nibert $1,500 to settle her claim.

Nibert sued Geico for breach of contract, common law bad faith, and statutory delay under C.R.S. § 10-3-1116. After discovery and before trial, Geico paid Nibert the $25,000 UIM coverage limit to settle the breach of contract claim.

A jury returned verdicts awarding Nibert $33,250 in noneconomic damages on her bad faith claim and $25,000 for her statutory delay claim. The trial court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict for the bad faith claim and judgment of $50,000 for damages on the statutory delay claim. It also granted Nibert’s motion for attorney fees in the amount of $118,875.30.

On appeal, Geico argued that the trial court failed to adequately instruct the jury on its theory of defense that challenges to debatable claims are reasonable. The trial court relied on the Colorado pattern jury instructions governing common law bad faith and first-party statutory claims. While it did not accept Geico’s tendered instructions on these issues, it allowed Geico to present expert testimony regarding the “fairly debatable” issue and to argue its theory of defense to the jury. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that the instructions, as given, adequately instructed the jury on the applicable law and the parties were afforded ample opportunity to present their case theories to the jury. The trial court’s ruling was neither manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, nor a misapplication of the law.

Geico then argued that the trial court erred in awarding Nibert recovery of two times her UIM benefit as a penalty. C.R.S. § 10-3-1116(1) provides a first-party claimant the right to bring an action for “two times the covered benefit.” Geico argued that the trial court should have allowed a setoff of the ultimate statutory damages award in the amount of $25,000 previously paid to Nibert on her UIM claim. The court agreed with other divisions that have concluded that a statutory damages award of two times a delayed benefit—even when that benefit has already been paid, resulting in an effective payment of three times the contracted benefit—is contemplated by the plain meaning of C.R.S. § 10-3-1116.

Geico also contended it was error to award attorney fees incurred to prosecute the common law bad faith and statutory delay claims, both before and after the date when payment of the UIM benefit was delayed. They argued the attorney fees should be limited to the period from the date the benefit was first delayed to the date the benefit was actually paid. The court found no support for Geico’s argument that the section does not contemplate an award of attorney fees incurred litigating anything other than a contractual claim or incurred for the time before and after a delayed benefit accrues and is paid.

The court also granted Nibert’s request for an award of her appellate attorney fees.

The judgment and order were affirmed, and the case was remanded for a determination of the amount of reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Insured Not Entitled to Prejudgment Interest when Settlement Reached Prior to Filing Suit

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Munoz v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co. on Thursday, February 23, 2017.

Prejudgment Interest under C.R.S. § 13-21-101(1).

Munoz was injured in a collision with an uninsured motorist (UM). Munoz opened a UM claim with his insurer, American Family Mutual Insurance Co. (American Family). American Family made settlement offers to Munoz but maintained it was not required to pay prejudgment interest because it was only required to do so after a judgment had been entered by a court. Munoz accepted American Family’s final offer, understanding that it did not include interest.

Munoz then sued American Family and the UM. Munoz moved under C.R.C.P. 56(h) for a determination whether American Family was required to include prejudgment interest as part of its UM claim settlement. The trial court ruled, as a matter of law, that the insured is entitled to such interest only when a judgment has been entered and interest is awarded as a component of damages assessed by the jury’s verdict or the court.

On appeal, Munoz argued that the trial court erred because prejudgment interest is a necessary element of compensatory damages that makes an injured party whole. American Family countered that the plain language of C.R.S. § 13-21-101 states that prejudgment interest can only be awarded after a judgment, based on a damages award determined by a trier of fact, has been entered. The Colorado Court of Appeals determined the plain language of the statute requires, prior to prejudgment interest being awarded, that (1) an action must be brought; (2) the plaintiff must claim damages in the complaint; (3) there must be a finding of damages by a jury or the court; and (4) judgment is entered.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Tractor is Motor Vehicle for Underinsured Motorist Coverage Purposes

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. on Thursday, January 12, 2017.

Insurance—Covered Motor Vehicle—Underinsured Motorist Provision—Farm Tractor.

Bunker was driving a farm tractor when he collided with Smith’s truck. The hay spears attached to the tractor pierced the truck and impaled Smith, leaving him severely injured. Bunker pleaded guilty to careless driving, and Smith settled his claim against Bunker for Bunker’s liability policy limits. Because this settlement did not fully compensate Smith for his injuries, he filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits (UIM) with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). State Farm denied coverage on the basis that a farm tractor is not a motor vehicle. Smith sued and the district court dismissed the complaint, finding that the tractor was not a covered motor vehicle for purposes of the UIM coverage policy.

On appeal, Smith contended that his policy’s property damage coverage section definition of “uninsured motor vehicle” is included in the UIM coverage provision. The Colorado Court of Appeals declined to extend the “uninsured motor vehicle” definition found only in the property damage coverage provision beyond that provision.

Smith next contended that the plain and ordinary meaning of “motor vehicle” includes the tractor. The court determined that the plain and ordinary meaning is an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and one with rubber tires for use on highways. Applying this definition, the court found that the tractor had wheels and its own motor, was not operated on rails, and was designed for use on streets and highways. Therefore, it was a covered motor vehicle under Smith’s UIM coverage provision.

The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded.

Summary provided courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.