Date: 03-29-2024

Case Style:

Charles Mayo v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Case Number: 1:24-cv-00102

Judge: Philip A. Brimmer

Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jeffrey Charles Young - 720-663-9655

Defendant's Attorney: Gregory F. Szydlowski and Bradley Ross-Shannon

Description: Denver, Colorado insurance law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a bad faith breach of insurance contract theory.

This case was filed in the District Court, Boulder County, Colorado, case number 2023cv30574, and was removed to federal court by Safeco Insurance Company of North America.

The elements of a bad faith case in Colorado are:

For the plaintiff, (name), to recover from the defendant, (name), on (his) (her) (its)
claim of bad faith breach of insurance contract, you must find all the following have been
proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The plaintiff had (injuries) (damages) (losses);
2. The defendant acted unreasonably in (insert appropriate description, e.g., “failing
to settle the claim [name of third party] made against the plaintiff”); and
3. The defendant’s unreasonable (conduct) (position) was a cause of the plaintiff’s
(injuries) (damages) (losses).
If you find that any one or more of these (number) statements has not been proved,
then your verdict must be for the defendant.
On the other hand, if you find that all of these (number) statements have been
proved, (then your verdict must be for the plaintiff) (then you must consider the
defendant’s affirmative defense(s) of [insert any affirmative defense that would be a complete
defense to plaintiff’s claim]).
If you find that (this affirmative defense has) (any one or more of these affirmative
defenses have) been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be
for the defendant.
However, if you find that (this affirmative defense has not) (none of these
affirmative defenses have) been proved, then your verdict must be for the plaintiff.

Outcome: 03/27/2024 26 ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/27/2024 re: 24 Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice. The case was dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the parties joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (providing that the "plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared") (emphasis added), and (B) ("Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.") (emphasis added). Text Only Entry(pabsec, ) (Entered: 03/27/2024)
03/27/2024 27 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to 26 Order. Text Only Entry. (jtorr, ) (Entered: 03/29/2024)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: