Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:00-cv-02098-REB-MJW

Document 254-13

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 1 of 2

Non-Stip P-04 INSTRUCTION NO. _____ The Court will now explain the claims and defenses of each party to the case and the law governing the case. Please pay close attention to these instructions. These instructions include both general instructions and instructions specific to the claims and defenses in this case. You must consider all the general and specific instructions together. You must all agree on your verdict, applying the law to the facts as you find them to be. The parties to this case are: Kelly Fincher, by her father and guardian, James Fincher, the plaintiff, and Prudential Property and Casualty Company, the Defendant. The plaintiff was in injured in an automobile/bicycle accident in May, 1994, when she was 10 years old. She received insurance benefits for her medical expenses from the defendant, which insured the automobile driver, until defendant informed her that the limits of the insurance policy were exhausted. Plaintiff claims that she was entitled to extended benefits under that policy. The court has already determined that as of the date of the accident, the contract required defendant to provide extended benefits, including medical and wage loss benefits unlimited in time and amount, subject only to a cap of $200,000. Plaintiff claims that the defendant breached the contract and acted willfully and wantonly, and in bad faith, in refusing to pay those benefits in a timely manner. As a result, she is seeking damages for her personal and emotional injuries and losses caused by the defendant's wrongful conduct

Case 1:00-cv-02098-REB-MJW

Document 254-13

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 2 of 2

The defendant admits that the plaintiff was entitled to certain benefits under the policy, and that it paid those benefits. Defendant denies that it acted willfully, wantonly or in bad faith in paying those benefits, but rather, its position concerning the payment of those benefits was at all times reasonable. The defendant also denies that it caused any damages to plaintiff. These are the issues you are to decide. CO-JICIV 2:1 (4th ed.)