545 F. App'x 762
10th Cir.2013Background
- Countryman held an auto policy from Farmers/Mid‑Century that included Med‑pay limited to “reasonable and customary” medical expenses furnished within two years of the accident.
- After a serious crash, Defendants paid about $14,920 for two years and refused payments thereafter based on the two‑year limitation.
- Countryman filed a putative class action in state court alleging the two‑year limit violated Colorado’s Med‑pay statute, C.R.S. § 10‑4‑635(1)(a), which requires motor vehicle liability policies to provide medical payments coverage (minimum $5,000) and prioritizes trauma‑care payments.
- Defendants removed under CAFA; the district court dismissed Countryman’s claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and entered final judgment.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit considered whether the Med‑pay statute forbids insurers from imposing time limits like the two‑year restriction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether C.R.S. §10‑4‑635 forbids time limits on Med‑pay benefits | Countryman: statutory text and default coverage imply Med‑pay must be open‑ended; thus time limits are void | Defendants: statute is silent on time limits; insurers may impose reasonable terms consistent with public policy, including time limits | Court: statute ambiguous but more consistent with allowing time limits; two‑year limit does not violate §10‑4‑635 |
Key Cases Cited
- Stickley v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 505 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir.) (forum‑state substantive law governs diversity cases)
- Klinger v. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 50, 130 P.3d 1027 (Colo. 2006) (courts give effect to General Assembly intent; start with statutory text)
- DeHerrera v. Sentry Insur. Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001) (absence of restriction in statutory part may imply legislature did not intend restriction)
- Chacon v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 788 P.2d 748 (Colo. 1990) (in absence of statutory inhibition, insurers may impose terms consistent with public policy)
- Huizar v. Allstate Insur. Co., 952 P.2d 342 (Colo. 1998) (heightened scrutiny of insurance provisions that may compromise insured’s interests)
- FDIC v. Am. 21 Cas. Co., 843 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1992) (contract provision void if enforcement clearly outweighed by contrary public policy)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Chacon, 939 P.2d 517 (Colo. App. 1997) (policy term not void simply because it narrows circumstances of coverage)
- Territory of Alaska v. Am. Can Co., 358 U.S. 224 (1959) (judicial notice of legislative history permitted)