Scott v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co.
No. 24-1358. 6/25/2025. D.Colo. Judge Kelly. Automobile Liability Insurance—Coverage for Specified Vehicles—Summary Judgment.
June 25, 2025
Scott was in a car accident with Cahill in which Scott suffered injuries. Cahill admitted that she was at fault. Cahill insured her vehicle under a Hartford policy and was also insured under a Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co. (Nationwide) policy (the policy) as a “resident relative” of her son, the named insured. The policy covered automobile liability “for damage or injury to others caused by your auto” and defined “your auto” as “the vehicle(s) described in the Declarations.” The policy does not designate Cahill’s vehicle, so Nationwide denied coverage for liability arising out of the collision. The parties arbitrated causation and damages, and Scott was awarded $424,140.26 for her injuries, and this amount was reduced to judgment in state district court. The Hartford policy paid $25,000, but Nationwide declined to pay the balance. Scott then sought declaratory relief against Nationwide for indemnification for the balance of the judgment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled for Nationwide.
On appeal, Scott argued that the policy’s provision extending coverage to only specified vehicles improperly limits statutorily mandated liability coverage in violation of Colorado law and public policy. She maintained that because Cahill was an “insured” under the policy, she was entitled to liability coverage that Nationwide wrongfully limited through the policy’s vehicle-based coverage exclusion. The Tenth Circuit determined that the plain language of Colorado’s motor vehicle insurance statutes suggests that motor vehicle insurers can limit liability coverage to extend only to specified vehicles. And Colorado courts have recognized that public policy supports letting insurers extend liability coverage only to specified vehicles. Further, Scott could not identify a statutory provision requiring an insurer to extend liability coverage to insureds regardless of whether the vehicle they were operating when they had a collision was named in the policy.
The judgment was affirmed.