Munoz v. American Family Insurance Co.
After Joel Munoz was injured in a car crash with an uninsured motorist, he filed a uninsured motorist claim with his insurer, American Family Insurance. During settlement negotiations, Munoz asked American Family to include prejudgment interest in its offer, but it declined to do so, stating that because prejudgment interest is required only after a judgment, it would not consider interest in settlement negotiations.
In this matter, the court considered whether an insured is entitled to collect prejudgment interest when he settles an uninsured motorist claim with his insurer in lieu of filing a lawsuit and proceeding to judgment.
Munoz later sued, alleging that American Family had breached its contract by refusing to pay all that he was entitled to under the uninsured motorist policy, which he viewed as including prejudgment interest. Munoz also alleged that American Family did not have a reasonable basis to deny him this benefit and that it had acted in bad faith by compelling him to litigate his claims to recover his full benefits.
The trial court concluded that American Family was not required to include prejudgment interest in any settlement offer because the claim did not result in a judgment through litigation.
The Supreme Court on appeal held that, under the plain language of the prejudgment interest statute, C.R.S (2017) section 13-21-101, an insured is entitled to prejudgment interest only after an action is brought, the plaintiff claims damages and interest in the complaint, there is a finding of damages by a jury or court and judgment is entered. Because Munoz did not meet all of these conditions, he is not entitled to prejudgment interest.
Przekurat v. Torres
After a joint birthday and graduation party in Boulder, a 20-year-old attendee drove drunk and got into a car accident leaving another party-goer with severe life-altering injuries.
The Colorado Supreme Court considered whether Colorado’s dram-shop liability statute requires a social host who provides a place to drink alcohol to have actual knowledge that a specific guest is underage to be held liable for any damage or injury caused by that underage guest.
A division of the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the language of the Dram Shop Act clearly and unambiguously requires that a social host must have actual knowledge that a person is underage in order to impose liability for that person’s actions. The Supreme Court concluded that the plain language of the statute is unambiguous and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
Zoll v. People
A jury found Matthew Zoll guilty of second-degree assault on a peace officer, criminal impersonation and two counts of resisting arrest. The trial court adjudicated Zoll a habitual criminal and sentenced him to 18 years in the Department of Corrections.
Zoll appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions in a unanimous, unpublished opinion.
The Supreme Court was asked to determine: the proper remedy when an appellate court concludes that the trial court incorrectly failed to disclose certain documents from a responding officer’s personnel file; and whether replaying a 911 recording for the jury in the courtroom during deliberations is a critical stage of the proceeding requiring the defendant’s presence.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in assessing whether the nondisclosure of documents in a responding officer’s personnel file affected the outcome of the trial. Instead, the Court of Appeals should have remanded the case to the trial court with directions to disclose the improperly withheld documents to the parties and to afford Zoll an opportunity to demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, had the documents been disclosed to him before trial, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
The Supreme Court also held that, even if replaying the 911 recording for the jury in the courtroom during deliberations could be deemed a critical stage of the proceeding, Zoll’s absence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court declined to address whether the Court of Appeals correctly decided that Zoll’s absence did not occur during a critical stage of the proceeding.
The Supreme Court reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded to the Court of Appeals with instructions to return the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
People v. Pappan
While responding to a 911 call regarding a rifle laser sight coming from a home, police questioned residents on the home’s front porch. None of the occupants police talked to had the laser sight on them, so, fearing there might be someone else inside, they entered the home and found two laser-sight rifles inside.
Michael Pappan, who police detained on the porch, was charged with felony menacing, reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. Following a pretrial hearing, the trial court granted Pappan’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his home, finding that “it would have been better practice for the police to obtain a search warrant.”
The People then filed an interlocutory appeal seeking review of the trial court’s order suppressing evidence of the two rifles seized during the warrantless search. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s suppression order and held that the officers’ warrantless search was justified by exigent circumstances.
The court concluded that the officers had an objectively reasonable basis to believe there was an immediate need to protect their lives or safety, and that the manner and scope of the search was reasonable. The court held that the warrantless seizure was justified by the plain view doctrine.