Fredericks v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America
2:19-cv-00778
| D. Nev. | Feb 23, 2021Background
- In 2016 Deborah Fredericks was struck by an underinsured motorist and sought UIM benefits from her insurer, Travelers.
- Fredericks sued after Travelers refused to pay medical expenses under the policy’s UIM provision.
- Travelers moved for summary judgment, arguing Fredericks failed to show (a) accident causation for her injuries, (b) apportionment of damages among pre-existing conditions, the 2016 accident, and a separate 2017 crash, and (c) admissible evidence for future damages.
- Fredericks conceded she lacks an apportionment expert and that she will not pursue future medical damages, but contends Travelers bears the burden to apportion damages once she proves the tortfeasor’s fault.
- Medical experts for the parties disagreed about whether and to what extent the 2016 accident caused Fredericks’s injuries, creating disputed factual issues.
- The court granted summary judgment only as to future medical damages (which Fredericks abandoned) and denied summary judgment on causation/apportionment, leaving those issues for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff must apportion damages between multiple causes (pre-existing conditions and accidents) | Fredericks: once fault is proved, insurer must apportion damages; plaintiff need not supply an apportionment expert | Travelers: plaintiff must present apportionment evidence/expert to show extent of damages from this crash | Court: disputed causation/apportionment questions are for the jury; plaintiff need not present an apportionment expert to establish proximate cause when liability is disputed |
| Who bears burden of proving proximate cause for UIM benefits | Fredericks: she met proximate-cause burden by proving fault; insurer should apportion | Travelers: Fredericks has not established that this crash proximately caused her injuries | Court: plaintiff bears burden to prove proximate cause; here proximate cause is disputed and cannot be resolved on summary judgment |
| Whether lack of an apportionment expert mandates summary judgment against plaintiff | Fredericks: absence of apportionment expert is not fatal if causation is disputed and jury can weigh evidence | Travelers: absence of expert segregation/opinion legally fatal to plaintiff’s damages claim | Court: no controlling authority requires an apportionment expert in this circumstance; credibility disputes about causation preclude summary judgment |
| Whether future medical damages survive summary judgment | Fredericks: abandoned future-medical-damages claim | Travelers: sought dismissal of future damages as unsupported | Court: granted summary judgment dismissing future medical damages (claim abandoned); denied summary judgment on other damages/issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standards for movant burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (assessment of genuine issues and weighing evidence at summary judgment)
- C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 213 F.3d 474 (movant with trial burden must produce evidence sufficient for directed verdict)
- Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (movant need only point to absence of genuine issue when opponent bears burden)
- Pemberton v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 858 P.2d 380 (legal-entitlement test for UIM benefits requires fault and extent of damages)
- State Farm v. Fitts, 90 P.3d 1160 (UIM coverage and liability principles under Nevada law)
- Kleitz v. Raskin, 738 P.2d 508 (Nev. rule shifting apportionment burden to defendants when multiple tortfeasors and plaintiff proves causation)
- Phennah v. Whalen, 621 P.2d 1304 (discusses burden-shifting on apportionment among successive negligent defendants)
- Scott v. Rainbow Ambulance Serv., Inc., 452 P.2d 220 (holding failure to segregate damages may be fatal where plaintiff cannot prove attributable injury)
- Cox v. Spangler, 5 P.3d 1265 (limits Scott to negligent-plaintiff context and requires defendant apportion when plaintiff not negligent)
- Fox v. Cusick, 533 P.2d 466 (Nevada Supreme Court: causation and damages weight and credibility issues for jury)
- Quintero v. McDonald, 14 P.3d 522 (Nevada Supreme Court: credibility and weight of causation evidence are jury questions)