Sierra v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 10-cv-03123-PAB-KMT |
| Parties | MARTHA SIERRA, Plaintiff, v. STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, formerly doing business as J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company, a Vermont corporation, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 54] filed by defendant Stonebridge Life Insurance Company ("Stonebridge"). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
This case arises out of an insurance coverage dispute between Stonebridge and plaintiff Martha Sierra. Stonebridge is a company that sells life insurance policies and, in 2007, Stonebridge had a contract with Americall Group, Inc., ("Americall") a third party teleservices firm, to sell life insurance policies over the telephone. Docket No. 54- 3 at 1, ¶¶ 6-7; Docket No. 69-4 at 3. Pursuant to the contract, Americall representatives would solicit prospective customers and market Stonebridge's life insurance policies. Docket No. 54-3 at 1, ¶¶ 6-7. If a customer contacted by Americall expressed aninterest in purchasing an insurance policy, the Americall representative would transfer the customer to a licensed insurance agent who would complete the sale. Id. As part of this sales process, Stonebridge preserved audio recordings of conversations between licensed insurance agents and potential customers; however, Stonebridge did not record or retain conversations between prospective customers and Americall representatives. Id.; Docket No. 69-4 at 4.
On July 2, 2007, Ms. Sierra received a phone call from Arelis Lopez, an Americall representative, regarding Stonebridge life insurance policies. Docket No. 69-4 at 2-3. Once Ms. Sierra expressed interest in purchasing an insurance policy, Ms. Lopez transferred Ms. Sierra to Sandra Arguello, a licensed Stonebridge insurance agent. Docket No. 54-4 at 4 (0574). Ms. Sierra and Ms. Arguello spoke in Spanish.2 During the conversation with Ms. Arguello, Ms. Sierra agreed to enroll in a Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan. The terms of the life insurance policy as reflected by the transcript of the conversation provided for $12,739.00 in insurance benefits, as well as additional coverage "for accidental death at a value of $12,739.00." Docket No. 54-4 at 4 (0574). The Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan required monthly premium payments of $24.95, which were due three months after the policy went into effect. Id. at 5-6 (0575-0576). Ms. Arguello also told Ms. Sierra that the Graded Benefit Life Insurancepolicy provided "limited benefits for death due to natural causes during the first two years of coverage" and that, during the policy's first year, it provided "for non accidental death" coverage up to "125% of the first year's premium" and, during the second year, the policy provided coverage in the amount of "125% of the premiums of the first two years."3 Id. at 4 (0574). In her deposition, Ms. Sierra testified that Ms. Arguello described all of these terms during the July 2, 2007 phone call. Docket No. 54-5 at 9-10 (Sierra Dep. 64:11-65:3). Once Ms. Sierra agreed to the terms of the policy, Docket No. 54-4 at 6 (0576), Stonebridge enrolled her in a Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan issued under Certificate No. 74L9067673 with an effective date of July 2, 2007. See Docket No. 54-7.
Ms. Sierra disputes several of these facts. First, she claims that Stonebridge's July 2, 2007 audio recording is incomplete because it does not include Ms. Sierra's conversation with Ms. Lopez or her entire conversation with Ms. Arguello. Docket No. 69 at 12-13. Ms. Sierra claims that, during the July 2, 2007 phone conversation, a Stonebridge representative told Ms. Sierra that she was eligible to purchase two $100,000.00 life insurance policies from Stonebridge - one for her husband, Isaias Sierra, and the other one for herself - with monthly premiums of $24.95 each. Docket No. 69-2 at 2 (Sierra Dep. 68:9-12); id. at 3 (Sierra Dep. 69:1-12). Ms. Sierra also testified that a "supervisor" confirmed that Ms. Sierra purchased a $100,000.00 life insurance policy on July 2, 2007. Id. at 4 (Sierra Dep. 70:8-12). In addition, Ms. Sierradisputes that Stonebridge sent her a copy of the life insurance policy issued under Certificate No. 74L9067673 and testified that she never received a copy of the July 2, 2007 Graded Benefit Life Insurance policy.4 Docket No. 54-11 at 5 (Sierra Dep. 18:9-18).
On August 2, 2007, a Stonebridge representative contacted Ms. Sierra about additional life insurance policies. Although Ms. Sierra spoke with a female representative on the morning of August 2, 2007,5 the terms of the August 2, 2007 insurance policy were not finalized until later that same day when Ms. Sierra spoke withBobbi Acosta, a licensed Stonebridge insurance agent. Docket No. 69-1 at 13. During Ms. Sierra's conversation with Ms. Acosta, Ms. Sierra agreed to enroll her family in Stonebridge's "group insurance plan for accidental death and hospital confinement." Id. Although the transcript of the conversation between Ms. Sierra and Ms. Acosta does not include the policy limits for this plan, the transcript shows that the policy Ms. Sierra purchased on August 2, 2007 provided coverage for accidental death and extended hospital stays and required monthly premium payments of $21.95, which were due two months after the policy went into effect. Id.
Ms. Sierra disputes Stonebridge's characterization of the insurance policy she purchased on August 2, 2007. Ms. Sierra argues that the August 2, 2007 phone call is a continuation of the July 2, 2007 phone call during which she purchased a $100,000.00 life insurance policy for her husband. Docket No. 69 at 12. Ms. Sierra claims that she discussed the $100,000.00 life insurance policy with a female representative on the morning of August 2, 2007 and believed that her conversation with Ms. Acosta was to finalize the terms of that policy. Docket No. 69 at 9-10; Docket No. 69-1 at 14.
On January 15, 2008, an Americall representative contacted Ms. Sierra again about additional life insurance policies. Once Ms. Sierra expressed interest in purchasing an insurance policy, she spoke with Hans Ohrner, a licensed Stonebridge insurance agent, to finalize the purchase of a life insurance policy. Docket No. 54-4 at 8 (0578). Ms. Sierra and Mr. Ohrner spoke in Spanish during the phone call.6 Duringthis conversation, Mr. Ohrner described the terms of a Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan that provided the insured with $11,683.00 in life insurance benefits. Id. The Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan required monthly premium payments of $24.95, which were due three months after Ms. Sierra agreed to its terms. Id. at 10 (0580). The January 15, 2008 policy provided "for non accidental death" coverage up to "125% of the premium paid during the first year" and, during the second year, the policy provided coverage in the amount of "125% of the premiums paid during the first years."7 Id. at 9 (0579). Once Ms. Sierra agreed to the terms of this policy, id. at 10 (0580), Stonebridge enrolled Ms. Sierra in a Graded Benefit Life Insurance plan issued under Certificate No. 74L92F9930 with an effective date of January 15, 2008. See Docket No. 54-9.
Ms. Sierra disputes Stonebridge's representation of the terms of the life insurance policy purchased on January 15, 2008. Docket No. 69 at 13-14. Ms. Sierra testified that the January 15, 2008 phone call did not actually occur. Docket No. 54-5 at 3-4 (Sierra Dep. 24:24-25-18). In addition, Ms. Sierra testified that she did not receive a copy of the January 15, 2008 policy. Docket No. 54-11 at 3-4 (Sierra Dep. 12:23-13:20); id. at 5 (Sierra Dep. 18:9-18).
On May 22, 2009, Ms. Sierra's husband died of natural causes. Docket No. 54-5 at 2-3 (Sierra Dep. 20:13-21:8); Docket No. 54-2. Ms. Sierra filed a claim with Stonebridge for $100,000.00 in life insurance benefits pursuant to the policies issuedunder Certificate Nos. 74L92F9930 and 74L9067073. Docket No. 1-1 at 6, ¶¶ 24-25. Stonebridge denied Ms. Sierra's claim. On August 21, 2009, Ms. Sierra and Olivia Sanchez, Ms. Sierra's niece, filed a complaint against Stonebridge with the Colorado Division of Insurance. Docket No. 54-20. In the Colorado Division of Insurance complaint, Ms. Sierra claimed that she had purchased four policies from Stonebridge under certificate numbers: (1) 74A90H6739; (2) 74AG6P1417; (3) 74L907673;8 and (4) 74I92F9930. Id. at 1. Ms. Sierra alleged that the policies under Certificate Nos. 74L92F9930 and 74L9067673 provided her and her husband with life insurance policies in the amount of $100,000.00. Id. After an investigation, the Colorado Division of Insurance dismissed Ms. Sierra's complaint. Docket No. 54-15 at 8 (Sanchez Dep. 49:8-12).
As a result of these events, on November 19, 2010, Ms. Sierra filed a complaint in the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado. Docket No. 1-1 at 4-8. In her complaint, Ms. Sierra brings claims against Stonebridge for violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act ("CCPA"), Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101 et seq., and for breach of contract. Docket No. 1-1 at 6-8. On December 22, 2010, Stonebridge removed the case to this Court asserting that this Court had diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Docket No. 1.
While the case was pending, on June 2, 2011, Ms. Sanchez called Stonebridge to obtain information about Ms. Sierra's insurance policies. Docket No. 54-15 at 2 (Sanchez Dep. 18:22-19:10). During the June 2, 2011 phone call, Russell Johnson, a Stonebridge representative, told Ms. Sanchez that Ms. Sierra had four insurance policies with Stonebridge and identified the insurance policies pursuant to the certificate numbers and the monthly premium payments. See Docket No. 54-17; Docket No. 54-5 at 4 (Sierra Dep. 25:10-16); Docket No. 69-4 at 2-3. According to Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sierra's...
To continue reading
Request your trial