 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.9/26/2002
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
Dailey and Pierce, JJ., concur
Defendant, American Family Mutual Insurance Company, appeals the judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiffs, Cynthia M. Allen and Leland Aultman, on their claims for bad faith breach of insurance contract and willful and wanton conduct and also awarding them actual and punitive damages. We affirm.
Allen lived at the home of her employer, an American Family insurance agent, and often borrowed his pickup truck. On June 26, 1998, Allen and her employer signed a handwritten conditional sale agreement stating:
Cindy [Allen] will purchase 1986 GMC P-Up [the truck] . . . for the amount of $2,600.00. With no interest charged if paid in full by Jan 31st 1999. Cindy agrees to pay for vehicle weekly, from bonus monies earned, min of $75 weekly and try for $100 weekly. To be taken from her earnings. . . .
The end of the document stated, "Cindy Allen will totally be responsible for vehicle from June 19th, insurance, maint, gas, all all-upkeep . Cindy and [employer] will go to bank later and get the title, last week end in June or first week in July."
Between June 19 and July 3, Allen made three payments totaling $300 to her employer.
On July 4, 1998, Allen, Aultman, and four others were involved in a one-car accident when the driver of the truck drove it off the side of the road. Neither plaintiff was driving the truck at the time of the accident.
Allen's employer had a general liability and personal injury protection (PIP) insurance policy from American Family. Allen and her employer filed claims under the insurance policy, but American Family denied coverage on the basis that although Allen had contracted to purchase the truck from her employer, American Family had not authorized her employer to assign the insurance policy to her.
Allen and Aultman brought this suit against American Family, asserting breach of contract and promissory estoppel. One week before trial, they moved to amend their complaint to add claims for bad faith breach of contract and willful and wanton conduct, among other things. The trial court granted their motion, noting that the delay in amending their complaint was primarily American Family's fault.
Following the presentation of the plaintiffs' evidence at trial, American Family moved for a directed verdict. The trial court denied that motion and instead granted the plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict, concluding they were covered under the American Family insurance policy and PIP endorsement. Accordingly, the trial court instructed the jury to consider damages for breach of the insurance contract, and to determine whether there had been a bad faith breach of the contract, and, if so, to consider damages for that claim as well.
The jury returned verdicts against American Family on all claims and awarded damages. This appeal followed.
I. PIP Endorsement
American Family contends that the trial court erred when it denied American Family's motion for directed verdict and instead directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of coverage under the PIP endorsement. However, because we conclude that American Family has not properly preserved the issue of whether the PIP endorsement contains an ownership requirement, we will not address it.
The parties' arguments focus on who owned the pickup truck under the conditional sale agreement. However, American Family never relied on the PIP endorsement definition of "insured motor vehicle" in its arguments before the trial court, nor did it direct the trial court's attention to that provisio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|