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, )

Download PDF
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?