Adamscheck v. American Family Mutual Insurance
818 F.3d 576
10th Cir.2016Background
- On June 7, 2011 Patrick Adamscheck, an El Paso County deputy, was rear-ended while working; he received workers’ compensation for injuries and settled the tortfeasor’s $25,000 liability policy.
- Adamscheck sued insurer American Family for UIM benefits under a $500,000 policy after claiming damages well in excess of the tortfeasor’s limit; American Family offered $65,000 pre-suit which Adamscheck rejected.
- American Family defended liability but disputed causation and severity, relying on surveillance, low vehicle damage, prior workplace injury history, and a proffered biomechanical expert, Dr. Jeffrey Broker.
- At pretrial the district court summarily excluded Dr. Broker without a Daubert/Rule 702 inquiry, directing American Family to proffer the expert report at trial; the court gave no on-the-record gatekeeping findings.
- A jury awarded Adamscheck $395,561 in UIM benefits and found American Family unreasonably denied benefits; the district court thereafter entered judgment including statutory damages and fees (~$1.45M total).
- On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed that workers’ compensation may not offset UIM benefits under Colorado law, but vacated and remanded for a new trial because the district court failed to perform the required Rule 702 gatekeeping before excluding Dr. Broker and the error was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether workers’ compensation benefits may be offset against UIM benefits | Adamscheck: Colorado law/public policy prohibit offset; collateral-source exception applies | American Family: Policy language and statutory scheme permit offset to avoid double recovery | Held: No offset — Colorado law (as interpreted) forbids reducing UIM by workers’ comp; summary judgment denial affirmed |
| Whether the district court satisfied its Daubert/Rule 702 gatekeeping before excluding American Family’s biomechanical expert | Adamscheck: Court properly excluded expert (waived other challenges) | American Family: Court failed to perform required gatekeeping; exclusion was unsupported | Held: District court abused discretion by excluding Dr. Broker without on‑record Rule 702 analysis; exclusion not harmless; verdict vacated and remanded |
| Whether Dr. Broker’s excluded testimony was cumulative or irrelevant such that error was harmless | Adamscheck: Exclusion harmless because other non‑expert evidence supported defense; relevance challenge raised at oral argument | American Family: Expert provided non‑cumulative, critical alternative causation analysis | Held: Not harmless — expert would have supplied critical alternative causation opinion not provided by other evidence |
| Whether appellate court should resolve statutory damages calculation | Adamscheck: statutory damages (as applied by district court) were appropriately calculated | American Family: challenges to calculation raised on appeal | Held: Court declined to reach statutory‑damages calculation because issue was not presented to the district court below |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co. v. Roinestad, 296 P.3d 1020 (Colo. 2013) (plain‑language policy interpretation principles)
- Pacheco v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., 583 F.3d 735 (10th Cir. 2009) (statute controls over conflicting policy terms)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995) (policy provisions void if contrary to public policy/statute)
- Barnett v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 843 P.2d 1302 (Colo. 1993) (prohibiting offsets for certain collateral benefits)
- Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hillyer, 509 P.2d 810 (Colo. App. 1973) (court of appeals held workers’ comp may not reduce UM/UIM recovery)
- Jordan v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 348 P.3d 443 (Colo. App. 2013) (interpretation of §10‑4‑609 and shift to an "excess" UIM approach)
- Tubbs v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 353 P.3d 924 (Colo. App. 2015) (UIM covers difference between damages and liable party’s limits)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial courts’ gatekeeping obligation for expert testimony)
- Goebel v. Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co., 215 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2000) (appellate review requires an on‑record Daubert analysis)
- Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 328 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2003) (district court must perform gatekeeper role; findings required)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) (insufficient findings defeat appellate review of expert admissibility)
- Storagecraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby, 744 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (harmless‑error context for expert exclusions)