Kipling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
774 F.3d 1306
10th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Kipling and her husband resided in Colorado; accident occurred in Colorado on July 27, 2009.
- Quicksilver Express Courier, Inc. provided the Suburban; Minnesota entities and Colorado subsidiary are involved in the corporate structure.
- State Farm paid UIM benefits under a Colorado policy for the Suburban and another Colorado policy for a 2005 Ford pickup.
- Plaintiff sought UIM benefits under four Minnesota-issued State Farm policies; those policies listed Minnesota addresses and vehicles.
- Minnesota policies define insured as occupants of a listed vehicle or certain substitute cars; Kiplings were not named insured and not occupants of insured vehicles.
- District court initially held Colorado law governed; trial occurred with damages determined and the jury verdict entered; State Farm moved for relief unsuccessfully.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado permits tying UIM to occupancy. | Kipling argues Colorado law prohibits occupancy-based UIM tying. | State Farm argues policy language tying occupancy is valid under Colorado law. | Colorado-law argument was untimely; no decision on occupancy rule. |
| Which conflict-of-laws principles govern: contract or tort for a contract claim. | Kipling argues contract conflict rules apply (Restatement §188, §193 rare). | State Farm argues tort conflict rules govern the dispute. | Court held contract conflict-of-laws principles apply and remanded for application by the district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- DeHerrera v. Sentry Insurance Co., 30 P.3d 167 (Colo. 2001) (UIM benefits must be provided without regard to vehicle occupancy)
- Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Anderson, 260 P.3d 68 (Colo. App. 2010) (interprets occupancy-based definitions of insured under UIM context)
- Ranger v. Fortune Ins. Co., 881 P.2d 394 (Colo. App. 1994) (tort conflict principles; contrast with contract approach in other contexts)
- TPLC, Inc. v. United Nat’l Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 1484 (10th Cir. 1995) (dual determinations under contract and bad-faith claims; supports mixed-conflict approach)
- Mitchell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 902 F.2d 790 (10th Cir. 1990) (conflict-of-laws de novo; forum state rules apply in diversity action)
- AE, Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 168 P.3d 507 (Colo. 2007) (Restatement guidance in conflict-of-laws for contracts)