A federal district court in Colorado has rejected a lawsuit brought by an insured against his automobile insurer for underinsured motorist ("UIM") benefits where the insured settled his negligence action against the alleged tortfeasor without any finding or admission of liability.
The Case
Jimmy Sabry alleged that he was injured by Casey Thompson in a car accident. Mr. Sabry sued and subsequently settled his negligence action (the "underlying case") against Mr. Thompson and his father without any finding or admission of liability.
Thereafter, Mr. Sabry sued Secura Supreme Insurance Company, seeking to recover UIM benefits under his auto policy.
Secura moved for summary judgment, contending that Mr. Sabry could not establish that Mr. Thompson, the alleged tortfeasor, was liable for his injuries and, therefore, that Secura had breached the policy by failing to pay him UIM benefits.
The Secura Insurance Policy
The Secura policy provided that Secura:
will pay compensatory damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an uninsured motor vehicle because of bodily injury:
1. Sustained by an insured; and
2. Caused by an accident.
The District Court's Decision
The district court granted the motion.
In its decision, the district court explained that, to prevail on his negligence claim against Mr. Thompson in the underlying case, Mr. Sabry had to prove the existence of a legal duty that Mr. Thompson owed to Mr. Sabry, a breach of that duty, injury to Mr. Sabry, and a causal relationship between the breach and the injury.
The district court then pointed out that "no accident reconstructionist" or other person opined as to the liability of Mr. Thompson for the alleged accident and that Mr. Sabry had not argued that expert testimony was not required.
Accordingly, the district court ruled, Mr. Sabry had not established that an underinsured motorist was liable to him for his alleged injuries – that is, that Mr. Sabry was "legally entitled to recover" from Mr. Thompson under the Secura policy.
The district court also decided that Mr. Sabry had not established that any injuries he allegedly had sustained had been "caused by an accident" as required under the Secura policy.
The district court observed that Secura's expert opined that Mr. Sabry's conditions were "most likely the result of natural aging and a chronic degenerative condition" and that they could "not be attributed to the accident."
The district court added that Mr. Sabry failed to "challenge these opinions, provide rebuttal evidence, or present any argument" that no expert testimony was needed to establish causation of his alleged injuries. Accordingly, the district court ruled, Mr. Sabry could not establish causation required under the Secura policy.
The district court concluded that, absent proof that Mr. Sabry was "legally entitled to recover" from Mr. Thompson for "bodily injury" that Mr. Sabry allegedly sustained that was "[c]aused by an accident," Secura had no contractual obligation to make UIM payments to Mr. Sabry.
The case is Sabry v. Secura Ins. Co., No. 18-cv-00809-RM-KMT (D. Colo. Sep. 17, 2019).
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].