Mischek v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 052319 FED10, 18-1156

Docket Nº:18-1156
Opinion Judge:Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
Party Name:PATRICIA MISCHEK, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; SKUYA CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before HOLMES, McKAY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:May 23, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

PATRICIA MISCHEK, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated; SKUYA CHRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-1156

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

May 23, 2019

(D.C. Nos. 1:16-CV-03208-PAB-MLC & 1:17-CV-00041-PAB-MLC) (D. Colo.)

Before HOLMES, McKAY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT [*]

Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge

This is an appeal from two putative class action cases that were consolidated in the district court. Plaintiffs contend that State Farm impermissibly reduced its insureds' uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits by the amounts it paid under medical payments coverage. State Farm sought summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs had previously "settled and/or reached an accord and satisfaction" on their disputed insurance claims against State Farm. (Appellants' App. at 170.) The district court agreed and accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm. We review the district court's summary judgment order de novo. See McCracken v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co., 896 F.3d 1166, 1172 (10th Cir. 2018).

Plaintiffs raise two main arguments on appeal: (1) they did not truly settle their claims with State Farm because they never signed a written release, and (2) even assuming they reached a settlement agreement with State Farm, this agreement is unenforceable based on public policy and retroactive application of the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 383 P.3d 676 (Colo 2016). Plaintiffs' second argument is foreclosed by our recent opinion in McCracken, 896 F.3d at 1172-73, in which we rejected a virtually identical argument brought by other Colorado insureds following the Calderon decision. As for Plaintiffs' first argument, we agree with the district court that the facts in this case, even taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, show that Plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction.

Contrary to Plaintiffs' representations, it is...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP