Encompass Indemnity Company v. Jones et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D. Colo.April 28, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TREVOR JONES, M.D., DANIEL D. JONES, and LISA K. JONES, Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Encompass Indemnity Company (“Encompass”) submits its motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that Encompass has paid to Defendants the full amount of underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits available under their Encompass insurance policy. As grounds, Encompass states as follows: INTRODUCTION This action arises out of an automobile accident in which Defendant Trevor Jones was injured while struck as a pedestrian by an underinsured motorist. Encompass had issued an insurance policy to Trevor Jones’s parents, Daniel and Lisa Jones (the “Policy”), which provided $250,000 in UIM benefits under its Motor Vehicle Protection Segment, and $1 million in excess UIM benefits under its Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment. Encompass has paid Defendants a total of $1.25 million in UIM benefits—the maximum amount of UIM benefits available. Defendants, however, are unsatisfied with the $1.25 million in UIM benefits that they purchased. Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 2 They have concocted a theory seeking to quadruple their excess UIM benefits in the amount of $3 million above the stated excess UIM limits. Ignoring the limits of the excess UIM benefits selected, Defendants now claim that Trevor Jones is entitled to an additional $1 million for each of the four vehicles his parents chose to insure. Defendants’ over-reaching argument conflicts with the Policy’s plain language and Colorado law, for several reasons. The plain language of the Policy defeats Defendants’ attempt to multiply the excess UIM policy limit by the number of vehicles insured. The Policy’s UIM coverage confirms that the $1 million UIM excess limit is “the most” Encompass will pay under any circumstance, and expressly prohibits multiplying the limit by the number of vehicles. Based on the simple contract language of the Policy, it is clear that Encompass has paid the $1 million limit of available UIM excess coverage, and that Defendants have no right to combine multiple limits. Even if the Court were to look beyond the plain language of the contract by examining the underwriting of the Policy—an exercise that is unnecessary—the result is the same. Encompass charged a single premium covering multiple vehicles. The underlying rate information establishes that the Policy’s premium was not calculated on a per-vehicle basis, so there would be no basis for allowing the combination of multiple limits. Defendants’ so-called “stacking” argument has been rejected as a matter of law by this Court in a case that raised the exact same “stacking” claim. See Sewell v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. 06-cv-000150-EWN-MJW, 2007 WL 2071617 (D. Colo. July 19, 2007). That case alone, and the reasoning therein, is enough to warrant this Court granting summary judgment to Encompass. Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16 3 Finally, the UIM statute, C.R.S. § 10-4-609, provides no support for Defendants’ position. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the statute does not require that personal umbrella coverage provide UIM coverage at all. Further, even if the statute were considered, it would in no way support Defendants’ fanciful thinking that they should be able to quadruple their UIM policy limits based on the number of vehicles insured under the Policy. For all of these reasons, the Court should grant this motion, and declare that Defendants are not entitled to any additional payments under the policy because Encompass has paid the maximum amount of UIM benefits available. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS (“FACTS”) I. THE INSURANCE POLICY 1. Encompass issued insurance policy no. 281790487 to named insureds Daniel Jones and Lisa Jones, effective May 28, 2015 to May 28, 2016. (See Ex. 1 to Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1.) 2. The Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment of the Policy provides “Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists” coverage with a limit of insurance of $1 million and provides as follows: THIS PERSONAL UMBRELLA SEGMENT DOES NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR EXCESS UNINSURED OR UNDERINSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE EXCEPT FOR VEHICLES WHERE A LIMIT IS SHOWN FOR EXCESS UNINSURED OR UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE. Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists $1,000,000 Vehicle(s) 1,2,3,4 (Policy at 7, Ex. 1 to Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1.) Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16 4 3. The Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment of the Policy states: “The Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage for each insured vehicle may not be combined or stacked.” (Id. at 8.) 4. The Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment of the Policy’s excess UIM coverage form contains a limit-of-liability provision stating as follows: The limit shown on the Coverage Summary for each person for OPTIONAL EXCESS UNINSURED MOTORISTS is our total limit of liability for damages because of bodily injury sustained by any one person in any one motor vehicle accident, including damages sustained by anyone else as a result of that. Subject to this limit for each person, the limit of liability shown on the Coverage Summary for each accident for OPTIONAL EXCESS UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS coverage is our total limit of liability for all damages for bodily injury sustained by two or more persons in any one motor vehicle accident. This is the most we will pay regardless of the number of: . . . c. Vehicles . . . shown on the Coverage Summary; . . . e. Vehicles insured by this or any other policy issued by us or others; or f. Premiums paid for this coverage. (Optional Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorists Coverage–Split Limit Endorsement at 3, attached as Ex. 1 (bold in original).) II. THE ACCIDENT AND PAYMENT BY ENCOMPASS 5. On or about August 1, 2015, a car struck Trevor Jones while he was walking across an intersection, causing him injuries. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 6; Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 2-3, ECF No. 6-3.) 6. Encompass paid $250,000 to Trevor Jones under the Motor Vehicle Protection Segment of the Policy’s primary UIM coverage. (Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 6-3.) Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16 5 7. Encompass has paid an additional $1 million to Trevor Jones under the Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment of the Policy’s excess UIM coverage. (Id.) Encompass has paid a total of $1.25 million in UIM benefits. (Id.) 8. Defendants have demanded an additional $3 million in excess UIM coverage benefits because there are a total of four motor vehicles listed under the Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment of the Policy. (Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 3, ECF No. 6-3.) ADDITIONAL FACTS Although not necessary to decide Encompass’s motion for summary judgment—given the Policy’s plain language and applicable law—the following facts are submitted to the Court to address Defendants’ anticipated contention that despite Encompass charging a single, per-policy premium, Defendants should be allowed to multiply the policy limit by the number of vehicles listed. Any such contention is refuted by the undisputed facts. 9. At the time the Policy was issued, Encompass charged premiums for UIM coverage (under both the Motor Vehicle Protection Coverage Segment and the optional excess UM/UIM coverage under the Personal Umbrella Coverage Segment) on a “per policy” basis. (See Encompass Affidavit ¶ 14, attached as Ex. 2.) 10. The Policy charges a single premium of $130.00 for UIM coverage “for all Vehicles” under its optional excess UM/UIM coverage. (Id. ¶ 13.) 11. Under such “per policy” pricing, Encompass charges a single premium rate for UIM coverage for policies insuring multiple vehicles regardless of the number of vehicles listed under the policy. (Id. ¶ 15.) Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16 6 12. The premium rate charged for UM/UIM coverage for multi-vehicle policies is based on the anticipated aggregate exposure to losses presented under such policies. That exposure includes consideration of the possibility of multiple vehicles being in use at the same time by multiple drivers. Actuarially, that calculation of premium does not involve a simple, mechanical multiplication of the number of vehicles insured by a per-vehicle rate. (Id. ¶ 18.) ARGUMENT I. THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT ENCOMPASS PAID DEFENDANTS THE FULL UIM COVERAGE BENEFITS AVAILABLE The interpretation of an insurance policy is a question of law for the Court to decide. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 74 P.3d 294, 299 (Colo. 2003). An insurance policy is “merely a contract” that is construed using “well-settled principles of contract interpretation.” Id. Courts give insurance policy terms their “plain and ordinary meaning, unless contrary intent is evidenced in the policy.” Id. Courts should not “rewrite insurance policy provisions that are clear and unambiguous.” Compass Ins. Co. v. City of Littleton, 984 P.2d 606, 613 (Colo. 1999). A term is ambiguous only if it is “reasonably susceptible on its face to more than one interpretation.” Allen v. Pacheco, 71 P.3d 375, 378 (Colo. 2003). Here, the Policy’s terms are clear and unambiguous. The Policy’s limit of excess UIM insurance is $1 million, as shown clearly and unambiguously in the portion of the Policy reproduced below: Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16 7 *** (Policy at 7, Ex. 1 to Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1 (emphasis added).) Not only is the excess UIM limit unambiguous, the Policy contains further language explaining specifically that such limit cannot be multiplied by the number of vehicles, as shown clearly and unambiguously by the portion of the Policy reproduced below: (Ex. 1, Optional Excess UIM Coverage Endorsement at 3 (emphasis added).) Finally, the Policy’s plain language expressly prohibits combining limits of excess UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis: Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16 8 (Policy at 8, Ex. 1 to Am. Compl., ECF No. 6-1 (emphasis added).) The Policy’s terms are clear and unambiguous as a matter of Colorado law. Under the Policy’s plain language, Trevor Jones cannot recover more in UIM benefits than the $1.25 million he has already received (the full $250,000 limit for his parents’ primary UIM insurance and the full $1 million limit for his parents’ excess UIM insurance). The excess UIM coverage limit cannot be combined on a per-vehicle basis; nor can it be multiplied by the number of vehicles. No other reasonable interpretation exists. This Court should enforce the Policy’s terms as written. Because it is undisputed that Encompass has paid the Policy’s full UIM limits, Encompass is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has exhausted the Policy’s UIM coverage, and Defendants are not entitled to any further payment of UIM benefits. II. DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS FOR SEEKING ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS ABOVE THE POLICY LIMITS HAVE EITHER BEEN REJECTED BY THIS COURT OR LACK MERIT AS A MATTER OF LAW Defendants have made several meritless arguments in support of their attempt to multiply the Policy’s excess UIM limits by the number of vehicles. Those arguments have either been rejected as “tortured” and “disingenuous” by this Court or lack any merit as a matter of law. A. This Court Has Already Rejected Defendants’ So-Called “Stacking” Argument Defendants theorize that they are entitled to four times the excess UIM limit because the Policy covered four vehicles. (See Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 2, ECF No. 6-3 (“Colorado courts would view this as stackable UM/UIM benefits at coverage limits times the number of vehicles Encompass took a premium on; in this case four.”).) This Court rejected that precise argument Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16 9 years ago, characterizing it as “tortured” and “disingenuous.” Sewell, 2007 WL 2071617, at *5. In Sewell, the plaintiff’s UIM insurance covered three vehicles. Id. at *1. The policy contained a provision prohibiting the combining of two limits of insurance on a policy covering multiple vehicles.1 Disregarding the policy’s plain language, the Sewell plaintiff argued (as the Joneses argue here) that she was “entitled to three times the coverage limit” for UIM benefits because she “unnecessarily paid for [UM/UIM] insurance coverage on three vehicles.” Id. This Court rejected the Sewell plaintiff’s attempt to multiply her unambiguously stated limits by the number of vehicles, emphasizing that the policy “clearly indicat[ed] a $300,000 coverage limit per accident.” Id. at *4. The Court reasoned that, given its “plain language,” there could be “only” one “reasonable interpretation” of the policy, namely, that the plaintiff “intended to purchase UM/UIM insurance that would provide $300,000 of coverage” at most in the event of an accident. Id. at *5. The policy’s “conspicuous anti-stacking provision clearly” intended to “limit an insured to a single recovery of the coverage benefit limit, no matter how many vehicles were covered.” Id. (emphasis added). Sewell finds confirmation in principles of Colorado UIM law. It is well-established that, “once plaintiff had procured UM/UIM coverage, the number of vehicles on the policy was immaterial to that coverage because under Colorado law the coverage applies to the individuals insured, not to vehicles.” Snell v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 260 P.3d 37, 40 (Colo. App. 2010) (emphasis added); see also DeHerrera v. Sentry Ins. Co., 30 P.3d 167, 175 (Colo. 2001) 1 The Sewell policy stated as follows in pertinent part: “[POLICYHOLDERS] CANNOT ADD TOGETHER TWO OR MORE LIMITS OF INSURANCE ON A POLICY COVERING MULTIPLE AUTOMOBILES OR ON MULTIPLE POLICIES COVERING [] AN INSURED.” Id. at *1 (emphasis in original). Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16 10 (holding that Colorado UM/UIM law “provides coverage for persons . . . and does not purport to tie protection against uninsured motorists to occupancy in any kind of vehicle”) (emphasis in original). The operative facts and law are essentially the same here as in Sewell, and the result should be the same. Like Sewell, Defendants’ Policy covers multiple vehicles and provides UIM coverage. (Facts ¶ 2.) As in Sewell, the Policy clearly indicates the limits for UIM coverage and does not permit the policy limit to be increased based on the number of vehicles. (Facts ¶¶ 2, 4.) Moreover, as in Sewell, the Policy prohibits combining limits of insurance. (Facts ¶ 3.) Just as this Court rejected the Sewell plaintiff’s attempt to multiply the UIM policy limit by the number of vehicles, the Court should do the same here. B. Excess UIM Coverage is an Optional Coverage—Subject Only to the Insurance Policy’s Terms According to Defendants, the Policy’s provision that prohibits combining excess UIM coverage limits is somehow impermissible under Colorado’s UIM statute, C.R.S. § 10-4-609. (See Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 1-2, ECF No. 6-3 (citing C.R.S. § 10-4-609(1)(c) and asserting that under these circumstances, it is “impermissible for a UM/UIM provider” to “attempt to limit liability to a single coverage limit”).) But there is no statutory requirement in Colorado that personal umbrella coverage provide UIM coverage at all. See Apodaca v. Allstate Ins. Co., 255 P.3d 1099, 1101 (Colo. 2011) (finding that “Allstate had no obligation to offer UM/UIM coverage in connection with the umbrella policy”). The Colorado Supreme Court has held that “an umbrella policy does not fall within the ambit of section 10–4–609(1)(a).” Id. at 1107. Defendants’ contention that Encompass should be required to pay quadruple the excess UIM policy limit because of the Colorado UIM statute is incorrect. Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16 11 As a result, the question of whether the excess UIM policy limits may be combined on a per-vehicle basis is simply a matter of contract. There is no statutory requirement that excess UIM coverage limits be combined and no restriction against contractual language prohibiting the combination of excess UIM limits. As stated above, Defendants’ Policy covers multiple vehicles and provides excess UIM coverage for all of them. (Facts ¶ 2.) The Policy clearly indicates a single $1 million limit for excess UIM coverage. (Facts ¶¶ 2, 4.) It expressly states: “The Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Coverage for each insured vehicle may not be combined or stacked.” (Facts ¶ 3.) There is simply no policy language that allows combining the limits of excess UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis. Indeed, such is clearly and unambiguously prohibited. C. Defendants' Assertion that They Paid Per-Vehicle Premiums is Incorrect, Irrelevant, and Refuted by the Undisputed Facts As an explanation for multiplying the policy limits by the number of vehicles, Defendants allege that they paid a separate per-vehicle premium for each vehicle insured. (See Ex. 3 to Am. Compl. at 1, ECF No. 6-3 (complaining that “despite a premium paid on four different household vehicles,” the Policy states that excess UIM coverage “for each insured vehicle may not be combined or stacked”) (emphasis in original).) They incorrectly assert that Trevor Jones is entitled to four policy limits because “under Colorado law, it is impermissible for a UM/UIM provider to sell this coverage for multiple premiums for multiple vehicles and then through anti- stacking language attempt to limit liability to a single coverage limit.” Id. at 1-2 (emphasis in original). Defendants’ argument suffers from several fatal flaws. First, it is incorrect because, as noted above, the Colorado UIM statutory provisions are inapplicable to umbrella coverage. Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16 12 Second, the language of the Policy controls how much Encompass may owe. See, e.g., Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, (holding that absent an ambiguity in the insurance policy, courts “will not look beyond the four corners of the agreement to determine the meaning intended by the parties”). There is no ambiguity in the Policy, which as noted above, expressly precludes combining excess UIM coverage limits. Third, the undisputed facts refute any suggestion that Trevor Jones’s parents paid four per-vehicle premiums. Not only is that fact clear on the Policy’s face, Encompass’s undisputed business records confirm it. Encompass charges a single premium for excess UIM coverage on a per-policy basis. (See Ex. 2, Encompass Aff. ¶ 14.) Encompass charges one premium for policies covering multiple vehicles, regardless of whether the number of vehicles is three, four, or five. (Id. ¶ 15.) Encompass calculates UIM premiums for multi-vehicle policies based on the “anticipated aggregate exposure to losses,” which includes considering “the possibility of multiple vehicles being in use at the same time by multiple drivers.” (Id. ¶ 18.) Actuarially, Defendants’ premium is “not simply a multiple of the premium for a policy insuring a single vehicle.” (Id.) Accordingly, Encompass’s single, per-policy premium charge for multiple vehicles listed on the Policy did not deprive Defendants of separate UIM coverage purchased on those vehicles and does not allow Defendants to combine the Policy’s excess UIM limits of insurance. See Mullen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 232 P.3d 168, 173 (Colo. App. 2009) (finding that Allstate’s “two- tiered” UM/UIM pricing—a single premium for single-vehicle policies, and a different single premium for multiple-vehicle policies—does not deprive insureds of the benefits of coverage for Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 16 13 multiple vehicles because the single multiple-vehicle premium is not a mere multiple per vehicle, but is actuarially based on the additional risks associated with multiple vehicle use). D. Even if the UIM Statute Somehow Applied, the Policy’s Excess UIM Coverage Limits Would be Permitted As discussed earlier, Colorado’s UIM statute, C.R.S. § 10-4-609, does not govern personal umbrella coverage. Even if it did, however, the Policy’s provision that prohibits combining limits of excess UIM coverage on a per-vehicle basis would comply with the UIM statute. Section 10-4-609(1)(c) states: “A single policy or endorsement for uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle coverage issued for a single premium covering multiple vehicles may be limited to applying once per accident.” (emphasis added.) The excess UIM coverage is a single endorsement issued for a single premium covering multiple vehicles. (Facts ¶ 2.) As permitted in the statutory text (if it were applicable), the excess UIM coverage limit may be limited to applying once per accident. E. Nor Would the UIM Statute’s Anti-Stacking Amendment (If Somehow Applicable) Invalidate the Policy Language at Issue In formulating their so-called “stacking” argument, Defendants appear to misunderstand what “stacking” is and misapply the portion of the UIM statute that deals with such. “Stacking” means “aggregating, combining, multiplying, or pyramiding limits of separate policies providing uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage as provided in section 10-4-609.” C.R.S. § 10-4- 402(3.5) (emphasis added). “Stacking” does not mean combining limits of insurance for each insured vehicle in the same policy. In 2007, the legislature amended the UIM statute to prohibit insurers from using “anti- stacking” provisions that prohibited combining multiple policies’ limits of underinsured motorist Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16 14 benefits: “The amount of the coverage available pursuant to this section shall not be reduced by a setoff from any other coverage, including, but not limited to, legal liability insurance, medical payments coverage, health insurance, or other uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance.” C.R.S. § 10-4-609(1)(c). The UIM statute’s “anti-stacking” amendment is irrelevant and does not support Defendants’ theory. There are no separate policies at issue here, so “stacking” cannot take place. Restated, the UIM statute, even if applicable, would in no way support Defendants’ wishful thinking that they should be able to quadruple their UIM policy limits based on the number of vehicles insured under the Policy. Indeed, even the “anti-stacking” amendment in the UIM statute does not compel that result. Defendants’ argument lacks merit as a matter of law. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Encompass respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter a declaratory judgment in substantially the following form: That Encompass Indemnity Company has paid the full limits of insurance to Defendants, that Defendants are not entitled to combine limits on a per-vehicle basis under either the motor vehicle protection or the optional excess uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage portions of the insurance policy, and that Defendants are not entitled to any additional payments under the insurance policy. Encompass further requests that the Court order such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 16 15 Dated: April 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, s/ Terence M. Ridley Terence M. Ridley Evan Bennett Stephenson Kayla Leigh Scroggins Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202-5647 Telephone: 303.244.1800 Facsimile: 303.244.1879 E-Mail: ridley@wtotrial.com stephenson@wtotrial.com scroggins@wtotrial.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) I hereby certify that on April 28, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses:  Chad Patrick Hemmat chad@andersonhemmat.com,kim@andersonhemmat.com,ethan@andersonhemmat.com, beth@andersonhemmat.com,jason@andersonhemmat.com  Ethan Andrew McQuinn ethan@andersonhemmat.com,beth@ahllaw.com  Terence M. Ridley ridley@wtotrial.com,stiles@wtotrial.com,wall@wtotrial.com,norris@wtotrial.com  Kayla L. Scroggins scroggins@wtotrial.com,norris@wtotrial.com  Evan Bennett Stephenson stephenson@wtotrial.com,cljones@wtotrial.com s/ Terence M. Ridley Terence M. Ridley Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, CO 80202-5647 Telephone: 303.244.1800 Facsimile: 303244.1879 E-Mail: ridley@wtotrial.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Encompass Indemnity Company Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 16 EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-1 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 5 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-1 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 5 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-1 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 5 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-1 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 5 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-1 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 5 EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-2 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-2 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-2 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-2 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4 AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-3 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10 AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT 2 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 14 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-4 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 14 AFFIDAVIT EXHIBIT 3 Case 1:16-cv-03017-PAB-KMT Document 41-5 Filed 04/28/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1