Douglas County Judge Rules for Defendant in Rear-End Collision

A motor vehicle collision occurred on eastbound Arapahoe Avenue in Boulder, Colorado, when a 2013 Volvo XC60 struck the rear of a 2007 Toyota Rav-4, which had stopped due to slowed traffic. The plaintiff, a passenger in the Rav-4, allegedly suffered severe harm and losses as a result of the incident. The defendant driver's liability policy provided a $25,000 limit. The plaintiff asserted that this limit was insufficient to cover his damages and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from the Rav-4 driver's insurer, the defendant GEICO Casualty Company. The plaintiff claimed GEICO's policy included $50,000 per person UIM coverage. After submitting a claim, the plaintiff alleged that GEICO ignored, delayed, or refused to properly investigate the information provided and promptly pay the UIM benefits. The plaintiff then filed a breach of contract action against GEICO in Colorado state court, which was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. GEICO partially admitted and denied the allegations, asserting defenses including full compliance with Colorado law and failure to state a claim. The parties subsequently reached a settlement, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

A motor vehicle rear-ended another automobile, operated by the plaintiff, while she was waiting in a line of cars for a school bus. The plaintiff allegedly sustained permanent injuries, incurred medical expenses, and suffered economic loss and loss of consortium as a result of the collision. The plaintiffs asserted the incident occurred due to the negligence of the at-fault driver. The at-fault driver's insurance carrier subsequently offered its policy limits. The plaintiffs, who had an underinsured motorist policy with GEICO, then filed a breach of contract action against the insurer in Colorado District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Denver, alleging a failure to provide underinsured motorist benefits. The plaintiffs contended they timely notified GEICO of the claim, informed the insurer of the settlement offer from the at-fault driver's carrier, and received consent to that settlement. GEICO removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. GEICO partially denied the allegations and raised affirmative defenses, including comparative negligence, failure to mitigate damages, pre-existing injuries, and failure to use seatbelts. The parties reached a settlement of their claims. Following a notice of settlement, they filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice, and the action was dismissed.

One driver collided with the rear of another vehicle while traveling eastbound. The driver of the rear vehicle sustained injuries and damages. The injured driver had an insurance policy that provided coverage for underinsured motorists. The injured driver claimed the insurance company denied and delayed payment of benefits and breached its duties. The case was filed in state court and later removed to federal court. The parties eventually settled their claims, and the case was dismissed.

A multi-vehicle collision occurred on IR8-W in Nevada when a phantom vehicle rear-ended one vehicle, propelling it into another. A passenger in one of the rear-ended vehicles allegedly sustained permanent physical injuries, incurred medical expenses, lost wages, and other damages as a result of the incident. The passenger filed a breach of contract action against Geico Casualty Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff claimed the vehicle had uninsured motorist coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per incident with Geico, alleging the company breached the policy by failing to pay owed benefits. Geico denied the allegations, asserting affirmative defenses including failure to state a claim, failure to mitigate damages, and comparative fault. The parties subsequently settled their claims. They later filed a joint stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice.

A vehicle collision occurred in Colorado on Santa Fe Avenue and W. Oxford Avenue when a third-party driver reportedly ran a red light and rear-ended a vehicle occupied by the plaintiffs, causing them to collide with a third vehicle. The plaintiffs claimed to have sustained broken bones and other injuries. After settling with the at-fault driver, the plaintiffs sought underinsured motorist (UIM) and medical payments coverage from their own insurer, Geico Casualty Company. Geico denied the claim, stating the policy lacked UIM or medical payments coverage, citing the male plaintiff's rejection of UIM coverage for the female plaintiff without her approval. The plaintiffs then filed a breach of contract and bad faith lawsuit against Geico in Boulder County District Court, Colorado, arguing Geico improperly denied their UIM claim despite the alleged improper rejection by the male plaintiff. Geico denied the allegations, asserting it had fully complied with Colorado law in handling the claims and raised affirmative defenses including failure to state a cause of action. The case was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The parties eventually filed a joint stipulation of dismissal of the action without prejudice.