![]() Before BRISCOE, McKAY and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. Hemphill of The Hemphill Firm P.C., Santa Fe, New Mexico and John Howard, Attorney at Law, Santa Fe, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Bienvenu, of Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico (Kristina Martinez of Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico Linda G. Walker of Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), for Defendants-Appellants. (Gabriela Richeimer of Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, D.C. Gerstein, of Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, D.C. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. 14-2199 SENTRY INSURANCE, a Mutual Company, and any other related business entities including parent companies, consolidated tax filers and subsidiaries including, DAIRYLAND INSURANCE COMPANY PEAK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CORPORATION and VIKING INSURANCE COMPANY OF WISCONSIN, Defendants-Appellants. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT DELBERT SOSEEAH, for himself and others similarly situated MAXINE SOSEEAH, for herself and others similarly situated JOHN BORREGO, for himself and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Consequently, the Court directed the district court on remand to address these issues.įILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit DecemPUBLISH Elisabeth A. ![]() Because the district court’s certification ruling did not expressly address the Rule 23 factors as they applied to each of the identified subclasses, the Court did not have enough information to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying two subclasses. Because plaintiffs failed to establish that all members of the general certified class suffered the common injury required by Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2), the Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in certifying the general class. Sentry subsequently sought and was granted permission to appeal the district court’s class certification ruling. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The complaint alleged that Sentry, by doing so, violated New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act (UPA), violated a portion of New Mexico’s Insurance Code known as the Trade Practices and Frauds Act (TPFA), breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and breached the terms of the two policies. ![]() Sentry purportedly refused to reform the policies and rejected Mr. Sentry reform” the two policies “to provide stacked uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage limits equal to the limits of the liability coverage on each of the vehicles covered by the” policies pursuant to the two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions. ![]() Soseeah “never executed a valid waiver of UM/UIM coverage under the” two policies and, consequently, Mr. The complaint alleged that Delbert Soseeah, after being injured in a motor vehicle accident, made a claim for UM/UIM benefits under two policies of automobile insurance issued by Sentry to Mrs. Plaintiffs Delbert Soseeah, Maxine Soseeah and John Borrego filed this action against defendants Sentry Insurance, Dairyland Insurance Company, Peak Property and Casualty Insurance Company, and Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (collectively Sentry) claiming, in part, that Sentry failed to timely and properly notify them and other Sentry automobile insurance policyholders of the impact of two New Mexico Supreme Court decisions regarding the availability of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage under their respective policies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |