Thompson v. Catlin Ins. Co., 2018 CO 95

Petitioners Thompson and Rogers obtained arbitration awards against their broker-dealer, United Securities Alliance, and sought to garnish United’s insurer, Catlin, under a $1 million professional liability policy.
Catlin claimed the policy covered the loss but sought to deduct its “reasonable and necessary” defense fees and costs from the $1 million limit; Catlin initially submitted heavily redacted invoices.
The district court, unable to decipher redacted invoices, disallowed any deduction; the court of appeals reversed and directed the district court to determine reasonable fees.
On remand the district court extrapolated from Petitioners’ arbitration fees; the court of appeals again remanded for more specific findings and instructed the district court to “review the existing record.”
After Thompson III, Catlin produced unredacted invoices; the district court considered them, calculated approximately $450,000 as reasonable fees (allowing Catlin to deduct that amount) and denied prejudgment interest to Petitioners.
On review (Thompson IV and then certiorari), the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the appellate division’s construction of the mandate (allowing consideration of the unredacted invoices) but reversed on prejudgment interest, holding Petitioners are entitled to it under section 5-12-102.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court exceeded the Thompson III mandate by considering evidence (unredacted invoices) not in the "existing record"	Mandate limited the court to the existing record; district court should not consider new evidence submitted after remand	Thompson IV/ Catlin: the mandate reasonably allowed consideration of newly submitted invoices to enable meaningful factfinding	Court: Thompson IV reasonably construed Thompson III; affirm (district court’s consideration of unredacted invoices was permissible)
Whether prejudgment interest is available in a garnishment proceeding on amounts wrongfully withheld by a garnishee	Petitioners: section 5-12-102 applies to non-personal-injury claims and entitles garnishors (judgment creditors) to prejudgment interest when money is wrongfully withheld	Catlin: Petitioners waived interest (failure to plead); garnishment procedure or C.R.C.P. 103 limits/precludes such interest; risk of double interest	Court: Petitioners are entitled to prejudgment interest under § 5-12-102; waiver rule in other statutes (e.g., §13-21-101) does not apply; reverse as to prejudgment interest and remand

People v. Roybal, 672 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1983) (law of the case/mandate rule must be followed)
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Dist. Court In & For Weld Cty., 906 P.2d 72 (Colo. 1995) (mandate rule promotes judicial economy and adherence to appellate decisions)
In re Sanford Fork & Tool Co., 160 U.S. 247 (U.S. 1895) (appellate courts construe their own mandates)
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (no deference when interpreting an appellate court’s own mandate)
Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Ross, 180 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2008) (§5-12-102 governs prejudgment interest in non-personal-injury cases)
Sperry v. Field, 205 P.3d 365 (Colo. 2009) (prejudgment interest pleading requirement applied under §13-21-101)
Clark v. Hicks, 252 P.2d 1067 (Colo. 1953) (historical pleading rule for prejudgment interest under predecessor statute)
Mesa Sand & Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc., 776 P.2d 362 (Colo. App. 1989) (purpose of §5-12-102 is to discourage withholding and recognize time value of money)