Nguyen, et al v. State Farm Mtl Auto

Filing 262

JUDGMENT by Clerk in favor of Roberta Folks against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company re: 261 Jury Verdict by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/30/12. (degar, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 04-cv-00243-REB-BNB
ROBERTA FOLKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
corporation,
Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), and the orders entered during the pendency of
this case, the following FINAL JUDGMENT is entered.
A. Pursuant to the Second Amended Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
and Order of Reformation [#225] filed September 14, 2012, which order is
incorporated by reference,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff Roberta Folks’ claim for reformation of the State Farm
policy is RESOLVED by the court’s reformation of the State Farm policy
as provided in the following orders;
2. That the State Farm policy under which Ms. Folks is entitled to benefits
is REFORMED to provide APIP benefits as of July 11, 2002;
3. That the State Farm policy is REFORMED to include the permissible
cap on APIP benefits of $200,000.

B. This case was tried before a jury of nine, duly sworn, commencing on
September 24, 2012 and completed on September 28, 2012. Pursuant to the verdict of
the jury [#261] filed September 28, 2012, and the order entered by Judge Robert E.
Blackburn in open court on September 28, 2012, which verdict and order are
incorporated by reference,
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Do you find that the plaintiff, Roberta Folks, proved by a preponderance of the
evidence all of the elements of her claim for breach of contract, as set forth in
Instruction No. 12?
__X__Yes

____No

2. What amount of actual damages, if any, as defined in Instruction No. 19, do
you find by a preponderance of the evidence were caused by the defendant’s breach of
contract?
$ 40,000
3. If you find that the plaintiff did not suffer any actual damages, then you must
award her nominal damages in an amount of not more than one dollar.
$ 0
4. Do you find that the plaintiff, Roberta Folks, proved by a preponderance of the
evidence all of the elements of her claim for bad faith breach of insurance contract
(statutory), as set forth in Instruction No. 13?
__X__Yes

____No

5. What amount of damages, if any, as defined in Instruction No. 20, do you find
by a preponderance of the evidence were caused by the defendant’s bad faith breach of
insurance contract (statutory)?
2

$ 96,000
6. Do you find that the defendant, State Farm, proved by a preponderance of the
evidence its affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, as defined in Instruction
No. 27?
___Yes

__X__No

7. If your answer to question no. 6 was yes, what amount of damages do you
find were caused by the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages?
$ 0
8. Do you find that the plaintiff, Roberta Folks, proved by a preponderance of the
evidence all of the elements of her claim for bad faith breach of insurance contract
(common law), as set forth in Instruction No. 14?
__X__Yes

____No

9. What amount of economic damages, if any, as defined in Instruct No. 21, do
you find by a preponderance of the evidence were caused by the defendant’s bad faith
breach of insurance contract (common law)?
$ 0
10. What amount of non-economic damages, if any, as defined in Instruct No.
22, do you find by clear and convincing evidence, as defined in Instruction No. 22, were
caused by the defendant’s bad faith breach of insurance contract (common law)?
$ 0
11. Do you find that the defendant, State Farm, proved by a preponderance of
the evidence its affirmative defense of failure to mitigate damages, as defined in
Instruction No. 27?

3

___Yes

__X__No

12. If your answer to question no. 11 was yes, what amount of damages do you
find were caused by the plaintiff’s failure to mitigate her damages?
$ 0
13. If you found in favor of the plaintiff on her claim for bad faith breach of
insurance contract (common law), do you find that the plaintiff is entitled to punitive
damages, as provided in Instruction No. 23?
__X__Yes

____No

14. If your answer to question no. 13 was yes, what amount of punitive damages
do you find should be awarded to the plaintiff?
$ 250,000
C.

On further determination of the court, however, and pursuant to C.R.S. §

13-21-102(1)(a), exemplary damages as awarded in interrogatory no. 14, by remittitur
shall be reduced to $ 0.

DATED at Denver, Colorado, this

30th day of September, 2012.
FOR THE COURT:
JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ Edward P. Butler
Edward P. Butler
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY THE COURT:

s/ Robert E. Blackburn
Robert E. Blackburn
U.S. District Judge
4