United States Tenth Circuit

Orders denying conservator's request to reform an automobile insurance contract to provide additional personal injury protection benefits (PIP) for his daughter, denying his request for wage-loss benefits, and dismissing the case are affirmed where: 1) reformation of a contract is not required where a claimed violation of Colorado's No-Fault Act is a failure to expressly enumerate all the parties eligible to receive PIP benefits, as opposed to the failure to offer those benefits and the subsequent failure to provide coverage; 2) alternatively, given all the materials that were mailed and otherwise provided to insureds, they were adequately informed that pedestrians and passengers were eligible to receive PIP benefits; and 3) an offer of extended PIP benefits to insureds was adequate and enabled them to make an informed decision about whether to purchase extended coverage.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/07/2007
• Published 03/07/2007

Judges

• ANDERSON, Circuit Judge., Before HENRY, ANDERSON, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Terence M. Ridley (John M. Vaught and LaMar F. Jost with him on the brief), Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, LLP, Denver, CO, for Appellee.