Ironstone Condominiums Association at Stroh Ranch Owners Association, Inc. v. Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company
Filing
168
ORDER denying 106 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 111 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. By Judge Christine M. Arguello on 12/03/2014. (athom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03160-CMA-KMT
IRONSTONE CONDOMINIUMS ASSOCIATION AT STROH RANCH OWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC., a/k/a IRONSTONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AT
STROH RANCH, a non-profit Colorado corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Third and Fourth Claims for Relief) (Doc. # 106) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 111).
Upon review of the parties’ extensive briefing and the evidence referenced
therein, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact preclude the Court
from granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant on each of Plaintiff’s third and
fourth claims (i.e., alleged violations of C.R.S. §§ 10-3-1115 & 1116, and common-law
bad faith, respectively). “What constitutes reasonableness under the circumstances is
ordinarily a question of fact for the jury,” Vaccaro v. Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2012 COA 9,
¶ 42, and Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence for summary judgment purposes to
dispute whether Defendant acted reasonably (1) in its investigation and resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims, and (2) in making its non-renewal decision. See Baker v. Allied Prop.
& Cas. Ins. Co., 939 F. Supp. 2d 1091, 1106-12 (D. Colo. 2013) (citing Vaccaro v.
Am. Family Ins. Grp., 2012 COA 9, ¶ 48) (denying summary judgment on C.R.S.
§§ 10-3-1116 and common-law bad faith claims because “a genuine dispute of material
fact exists over whether the insurers’ handling of [a plaintiff’s claim] constitutes bad faith
or an unreasonable delay”); Rabin v. Fid. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F. Supp. 2d
1107, 1112-14 (D. Colo. 2012) (same). Similarly, genuine issues of material fact
preclude the Court from granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s
breach of contract claims.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Third and Fourth Claims for Relief) (Doc. # 106) and Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 111) are DENIED.
DATED: December 3, 2014
BY THE COURT
_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?