Patterson v. GEICO General Insurance Company
347 P.3d 562
Alaska2015Background
- In December 2009 Tommie Patterson was injured in a hit‑and‑run; he held a GEICO auto policy with uninsured motorist coverage and disputed the severity and extent of injuries with GEICO.
- Patterson sued GEICO for breach of contract (seeking compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering); GEICO admitted some entitlement to benefits but asserted preexisting conditions and other defenses.
- Patterson’s counsel withdrew; Patterson proceeded pro se, sought to amend his complaint shortly before trial to add RICO, embezzlement, mail fraud, and bad‑faith claims, and the court denied the motion as untimely and futile.
- At trial GEICO presented a records‑review expert (Dr. Bald); the court limited Patterson’s evidence and arguments to injury issues, excluded unrelated allegations (e.g., policy limits, unproven malpractice claims), and omitted portions of Dr. Bald’s deposition as irrelevant.
- The jury awarded $10,000 in past medical expenses and $5,000 for past noneconomic damages; after adjustments for medical payments already made, prejudgment interest, and Rule 68 attorney’s fees/costs (because GEICO’s offer exceeded the judgment by the Rule 68 threshold), the net judgment to Patterson was $1,556.75.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of leave to amend to add RICO/embezzlement/mail fraud/bad‑faith claims | Patterson argued he should be allowed to amend to allege GEICO’s fraudulent/bad‑faith practices | GEICO argued amendment was untimely and the proposed claims lacked factual or legal support | Court affirmed denial: amendment futile (no factual allegations to support new claims) |
| Motion to disqualify trial judge | Patterson alleged bias, conspiracy, prior adverse rulings, and ex parte contacts | GEICO and reviewing judge argued prior rulings and dissatisfaction are insufficient; no evidence of nonjudicial bias or improper communications | Denial affirmed: no factual basis for disqualification; prior adverse rulings not a ground for recusal |
| Evidentiary rulings, deposition admissions, and limits on courtroom speech/argument | Patterson argued court improperly admitted coached/false deposition testimony, excluded portions, curtailed his speech, and violated due process/First Amendment | GEICO maintained deposition and argument were proper and court rightly excluded irrelevant/prejudicial material and kept proceedings focused | Rulings affirmed: no abuse of discretion admitting deposition excerpts; court reasonably limited irrelevant/prejudicial evidence and arguments; no First Amendment violation in courtroom restrictions |
| Application of Alaska Civ. R. 68; adjustment of verdict and award of fees/costs | Patterson argued court erred by reducing verdict for medical payments and awarding GEICO fees/costs under Rule 68 | GEICO relied on valid offer of judgment and Rule 68 thresholds; adjustment needed to avoid double recovery | Affirmed: court correctly subtracted paid medical benefits, applied prejudgment interest, found GEICO prevailing under Rule 68 and awarded fees/costs leading to net judgment in Patterson’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Krause v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 229 P.3d 168 (Alaska 2010) (standard for reviewing denial of leave to amend and evaluating futility)
- Hallam v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 91 P.3d 279 (Alaska 2004) (standards on amendment and pleadings)
- Miller v. Safeway, Inc., 102 P.3d 282 (Alaska 2004) (factors balancing prejudice and delay in Rule 15 amendment decisions)
- Sowinski v. Walker, 198 P.3d 1134 (Alaska 2008) (standard for overturning jury instructions or special verdict forms)
- United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (discussing limits on prosecutors’ personal‑opinion arguments; cited for argument‑type standards)