Schnacker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91CA0972,91CA0972 |
| Parties | Lyle SCHNACKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Wilcox, Ogden & Cox, P.C., Ralph Ogden, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hall & Evans, Alan Epstein, John P. Mitzner, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Opinion by Judge PLANK.
Plaintiff, Lyle Schnacker, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company. We affirm.
On November 8, 1986, the plaintiff was in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured driver. At the time of this accident, the plaintiff had uninsured motorists insurance issued by the defendant as required by the no-fault insurance statute, § 10-4-706, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 4A).
On January 23, 1988, the plaintiff was in another automobile collision caused by an individual who was also insured by the defendant, and his policy provided liability limits of $100,000 per person. At that time, plaintiff still had no-fault and uninsured motorist coverage provided by defendant.
After the second accident, the plaintiff, who was then 60 years old, was unable to return to his employment as a lathe operator. Plaintiff's physician attributed 100% of the cause of the plaintiff's inability to return to work to the second accident. After examining plaintiff, defendant's physician apportioned 20% of the cause of injuries to the uninsured motorist collision and 80% to the second accident.
When plaintiff attempted to settle his damage claims on the two accidents, two of the defendant's adjusters took varying positions on the damages attributable to uninsured motorist accident and the second accident. The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against the other motorist in the second accident; however, a mistrial was declared.
Plaintiff eventually settled both claims with the defendant, the uninsured motorist claim for $10,000 and the second accident claim for $100,000, the policy limits. As part of the second accident settlement, plaintiff retained the right to amend his complaint and sue the defendant for any prejudgment interest he might be entitled to.
Alleging that defendant had, in bad faith, delayed settlement of the second accident plaintiff then asserted this claim against the defendant. Under that theory, plaintiff asserted that, in addition to the $100,000 paid on the second accident claim, the defendant owed him interest for a seventeen month period. Relying on § 5-12-102, C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.), plaintiff alleged that, because both liability and damages were clear as of March 1, 1989, he is entitled to interest on money wrongfully withheld by the defendant from that date until actual payment of the $100,000 seventeen months later.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging it could not be held liable for damages in the form of interest for any amount in excess of the policy limits. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to interest from the defendant during the seventeen month period of the second accident settlement negotiations. We disagree.
Plaintiff argues that the defendant refused to negotiate in good faith for seventeen months after it knew that its insured, the motorist in the second accident, was responsible for plaintiff's injuries and that his damages were in excess of the defendant's policy limits of $100,000. Plaintiff contends the defendant acted in bad faith because its adjusters presented conflicting positions during settlement negotiations and that it took seventeen months for the defendant to settle with the plaintiff for the policy limits of $100,000.
Plaintiff asserts that, pursuant to § 10-3-1104(1)(h)(VI), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 4A), the defendant had an affirmative obligation to settle promptly his claim for its policy limits when liability, causality, and the amount of his damages became reasonably clear in March of 1989. However, § 10-3-1101 through § 10-3-1112, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 4A) provides for state regulation of insurance companies and does not create a private cause of action. Hence, the statute relied upon by plaintiff cannot be used as a basis for his claim.
Plaintiff further alleges that, because the defendant breached this obligation and negotiated in bad faith and wrongfully withheld funds, he is entitled to interest for the seventeen months pursuant to § 5-12-102, C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.). However, § 5-12-102(1), C.R.S. (1991 Cum.Supp.) generally pertains to post-judgment interest which applies to debt, contract, and property damage cases. Interest on personal injury claims is controlled by § 13-21-101, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). See Mesa Sand & Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc., 776 P.2d 362 (Colo.1989). H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elmore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...in attempting to settle a claim runs only to the insured, not to the injured party.") (Citation omitted); Schnacker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 843 P.2d 102, 104 (Colo.App.1992) ("The duty of an insurer to act in good faith when dealing with its insured is recognized and is implied in la......
-
Cassidy v. Millers Cas. Ins. Co. of Texas, Civ.A. No. 94-B-1480.
...to punitive damages when insurance contract does not provide indemnity for punitive damages); see also Schnacker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 843 P.2d 102 (Colo.App.1992) (injured third-party claimant did not have standing to allege bad faith cause of action against tortfeasor's insur......
-
Arenberg v. Central United Life Ins. Co., CIV.A. 97-B-428.
...and injured workers, even though workers are not in privity of contract with the insurance carrier. Cf. Schnacker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 843 P.2d 102 (Colo.App.1992) (injured third-party claimant did not have standing to allege bad faith breach of insurance contract against tort......
-
Kleckley v. Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co.
...ed.) § 58:4 (1983 & Supp.1997); 18 id. § 74:284. The Colorado Court of Appeals examined the issue in Schnacker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 843 P.2d 102 (Colo.Ct.App.1992). Because this was a novel issue in Colorado, the court looked to other jurisdictions. The court Other......
-
The Showpiece Homes Decision: from Caveat Emptor to Insurer Beware?
...or tort cause of action." 10. 815 P.2d 959, 966 (Colo.App. 1991). 11. CRS § 10-4-609. 12. See Schnacker v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 843 P.2d 102, 104 (Colo.App. 13. Supra, note 3. 14. The CCPA is found at CRS §§ 6-1-101 et seq.; the UCDPA is codified at CRS §§ 10-3-1101 et seq. 15. Supra, ......