Smith v. Kinningham
2013 COA 103
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Two defendants, Alan W. Kinningham and Accelerated Network Solutions (ANS), appeal a judgment favoring plaintiffs James C. Smith and Dona Laurita and challenge several trial court orders.
- Kinningham is part-owner of ANS; ANS was insured on the car involved, which Kinningham drove.
- The accident occurred on a Denver one-way street; Smith stopped at a red light, Kinningham rear-ended him after the collision.
- The trial court granted ANS a directed verdict on all claims against it; the jury ruled against Kinningham and in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The appeal covers evidentiary rulings on Medicaid benefits, a sudden emergency instruction, costs, prevailing-party status for ANS, and other discretionary rulings; the court affirms some rulings and reverses others, remanding for cost-related proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Medicaid benefits as collateral source | Smith; benefits are collateral sources not admissible | Kinningham/ANS: benefits may be admitted | Medicaid benefits excluded; pre-verdict collateral source rule applies |
| Grading of Medicaid benefits as gratuitous government benefits | Medicaid benefits should not be admitted as gratuitous government benefits | Benefits may be treated as gratuitous government benefits | Abrogated by section 10-1-135(10)(a); cannot be admitted for any purpose |
| Hearing on plaintiffs' costs and reasonableness | Costs and expert fees require an evidentiary hearing | Hearing not required | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on costs and related items |
| ANS as prevailing party and entitlement to costs/fees | ANS prevailed on all claims; entitled to costs | Prevailing party status not established; no attorney fees | ANS is prevailing party and entitled to costs; no attorney-fee award; remand for costs/fees determination |
| Other discretionary rulings (mistrial/new trial, sanctions, insurance evidence) | Various trial-court rulings should be sustained | Challenges to multiple rulings | No reversible error found on most issues; some sanctions/receipts remanded or affirmed as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crossgrove, 2012 CO 31 (Colo. 2012) (pre-verdict collateral source rule; exclude evidence of benefits to avoid implying collateral sources)
- Smith v. Jeppsen, 2012 CO 82 (Colo. 2012) (collateral source concept; defines collateral source)
- McLoughlin v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2012 COA 92 (Colo.App. 2012) (collateral source viability; benefits treated as collateral)
- City of Englewood v. Bryant, 100 Colo. 552, 68 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1937) (gratuitous government benefits exception; abrogated by statute)
- Herbst v. L.B.O. Holding, Inc., 783 F.Supp.2d 262 (D.N.H. 2011) (admissibility of Medicaid-like benefits in collateral source context)