A federal appeals court on Thursday resumed disputes filed by an insurer against a policyholder to resolve a case without its permission.
Denver-based Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association Inc. had sued several contractors and subcontractors, including Phoenix-based Sierra Glass Co., a policyholder in Lansing, Michigan-based Auto-Owners Insurance Co., in the state court for alleged construction. defects in one of its residential developments, according to the decision of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal in Denver Auto-Owners Insurance Co. mot Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Assn., Inc .; Sierra Glass Co., Inc.
Before the trial, Sierra Glass settled the $ 350,000 case without Auto-Owner's knowledge or consent. Auto-owners tried to intervene in the suit to stop the trial, but the state trial denied its motion and went ahead with a two-day bench trial.
Following the trial, in which Sierra Glass made no defense and the judgment was upheld for Bolt Factory, Auto-Owners appealed the state court's denial of its motion to intervene, which was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. A certificate letter from the Colorado Supreme Court remains.
Although it appealed against the judgment of the Court, car addicts filed a separate dispute in the US District Court in Denver seeking a declaration that the settlement agreement between Sierra Glass and Bolt Factory violated Sierra Glass' duty to cooperate under its policy and thereby relieved it of its obligations under coverage .
The district court dismissed the declaratory measures which appealed prematurely due to the associated state court.
The dispute was reopened by unanimity three judges appeal the court panel. Auto-Owners' claims "are not dependent on the state court," it said. "The State Court's appeal includes the denial of Auto-Owner's proposal to intervene to defend against Boltfabriken's assigned claims from third parties."
"Although the two trials have overlapping facts, the federal sentencing judgment does not depend on the outcome of the State Court's appeal," the lower court reversal panel said, withdrawing the case for further proceedings.
Lawyers in the case had no comment or did not respond to a request for comment.