Filed: Jan. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2020
Summary: ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS SCOTT T. VARHOLAK , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Joint Statement Re: Objections to Deposition Designations (the "Joint Statement") [#103]. The parties' have consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this action, including the entry of a final judgment [#12, 14], and this matter is set for a jury trial commencing on February 3, 2020 [#92]. This Court has carefully cons
Summary: ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS SCOTT T. VARHOLAK , Magistrate Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Joint Statement Re: Objections to Deposition Designations (the "Joint Statement") [#103]. The parties' have consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this action, including the entry of a final judgment [#12, 14], and this matter is set for a jury trial commencing on February 3, 2020 [#92]. This Court has carefully consi..
More
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS
SCOTT T. VARHOLAK, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the Parties' Joint Statement Re: Objections to Deposition Designations (the "Joint Statement") [#103]. The parties' have consented to have a United States magistrate judge conduct all proceedings in this action, including the entry of a final judgment [#12, 14], and this matter is set for a jury trial commencing on February 3, 2020 [#92]. This Court has carefully considered the parties' submission and exhibits, the entire case file, and the applicable case law, and has determined that oral argument would not materially assist in the disposition of the objections.
The instant action arises out of a November 1, 2016 automobile accident in which Plaintiff Jack E. Rooney's vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by an underinsured motorist. [#3, ¶¶ 5-8] At the time of the accident, Plaintiff had underinsured motorist insurance coverage through an insurance policy issued by Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company ("Allstate"). [Id. at ¶¶ 10] On December 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Allstate asserting claims for breach of contract, statutory bad faith, and common law bad faith. [Id. at 3-5]
In the course of discovery, Plaintiff served Defendant with a notice of deposition that identified the topics for examination pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). On March 12, 2019, Defendant served objections to the topics identified in the notice. [#106-9] On March 15, 2019, Plaintiff served Defendant with the Amended Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Allstate Insurance Company (the "Amended Notice"), which identified the eleven topics for examination. [#103-2] On March 26, 2019, Plaintiff took the videotaped deposition of Aaron Johnson—the individual Defendant designated to testify on its behalf in response to the Amended Notice. [#103-1]
On January 17, 2020, in preparation for trial, the parties submitted the Joint Statement and attached thereto a complete transcript of Mr. Johnson's deposition testimony that identifies all of Plaintiff's proposed designations of testimony to be offered to the jury at trial, and Defendant's objections thereto. [#103, 103-1] The Joint Statement contains a chart identifying the basis for Defendant's objections.
For purposes of delivering its ruling on the objections, the Court has added a column to the chart contained in the Joint Statement which is populated with the Court's ruling and a brief explanation for that ruling.
No. PLAINTIFF'S DESIGNATION DEFENDANT'S Court's Ruling
OBJECTIONS
1 Page 32, line 22-Page 33, line 1 Misstates the Overruled. Question not framed as a statement of
Q. Does Allstate agree that it owes its insured law law—duty that is "owed" could be contractual,
the duty to conduct a reasonable investigation business practices, or legal. To extent interpreted
based upon all available information? as statement of law, not prejudicial. See Colo.
A. Yes Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1104(h)(IV) (prohibiting
"[r]efusing to pay claims without conducting a
reasonable investigation based upon all available
information"). With regard to this entire line of
questioning (Objection #1-7, 9) the Court may
instruct the jury that the Court will provide them
with the legal principles they must apply.
2 Page 34, line 23-Page 35, line 1 Legal Overruled. Asks only for Allstate's understanding
Q. Does Allstate understand that it cannot conclusion; of its obligation. To extent interpreted as
delegate its duty to investigate to anyone else? vague: misstates statement of law, not prejudicial. See Cary v.
A. Yes the law United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 68 P.3d 462, 466
(Colo. 2003) ("The duty is non-delegable so that
insurers cannot escape their duty of good faith and
fair dealing by delegating tasks to third parties.")
3 Page 37, line 18-Page 37, line 22 Misstates the
Q. Does Allstate understand law; legal
that it may not refuse to pay claims without first conclusion [Same as Objection #1]
conducting a reasonable investigation based
upon all
available information?
A. Yes.
4 Page 39, line 4-Page 39, line 13 Legal Overruled. Asks only for Allstate's understanding
Q. does Allstate understand that it is conclusion; of its obligation. To extent interpreted as
inappropriate for it to compel insureds to institute misstates C.R.S. statement of law, not prejudicial. Colo. Rev. Stat. §
litigation to recover amounts due under an §10-3-1104 10-3-1104(h)(VII) (prohibiting "[c]ompelling
insurance policy by offering substantially less insureds to institute litigation to recover amounts
than the amounts ultimately recovered in actions due under an insurance policy by offering
brought by such insureds? substantially less than the amounts ultimately
A. I disagree that it's inappropriate if recovered")
we have a reasonable disagreement on the value
5 Page 39, line 23-Page 40, line 10 Legal
Q. So Allstate does think that it can appropriately conclusion;
compel its insureds to institute litigation to recover misstates C.R.S. [Same as Objection #4]
amounts due under an insurance policy by §10-3-1104
offering them substantially less than the amounts
that they will ultimately recover in actions brought
by them?
A. And I disagree with the notion that we would
compel them to initiate litigation. We would try to
resolve the dispute. If they feel that it's unable to
be resolved and they want to file litigation, they
have that right.
6 Page 43, line 1-Page 43, line 10 Legal Overruled. Asks only for Allstate's understanding
Q. Does Allstate understand that it is conclusion; of its obligation. To extent interpreted as
inappropriate for it to—for it to delay the misstates C.R.S. statement of law, not prejudicial. Colo. Rev. Stat. §
investigation or payment of a claim by requiring §10-3-1104 10-3-1104(h)(XII) (prohibiting "[d]elaying the
the insured, the claimant, or a physician to submit investigation or payment of claims by requiring an
a preliminary claim report and then requiring insured or claimant, or the physician of either of
subsequent submissions of formal proof of loss them, to submit a preliminary claim report, and
forms, both of which submissions contain then requiring the subsequent submission of formal
substantially the same information? proof of loss forms, both of which submissions
A. Generally, yes. contain substantially the same information")
7 Page 44, line 16-Page 44, line 22 Legal Overruled. Asks only for Allstate's understanding
Q. Does Allstate understand that it is conclusion; of its obligation. To extent interpreted as
inappropriate for it to fail to promptly provide a misstates C.R.S. statement of law, not prejudicial. Colo. Rev. Stat. §
reasonable explanation on the basis in the §10-3-1104 10-3-1104(h)(XII) (prohibiting "[flailing to promptly
insurance policy in relation to the facts or provide a reasonable explanation of the basis in
applicable law for a denial of a claim or for the the insurance policy in relation to the facts or
offer of a compromise settlement? applicable law for denial of a claim or for the offer
A. Yes. of a compromise settlement")
8 Page 47, line 1-Page 47, line 11 Doesn't apply; Sustained based upon current designations as it
Q. And Allstate would never demand an relevance lacks context to make it understandable to
appraisal on a bodily injury claim? jury/would only confuse. If Plaintiff wants to
A. That particular segment does not apply to a include this testimony, he needs to provide the
bodily injury claim, no. relevant context (46:15-25). With context, Q/A is
Q. Okay. Is there anything precluding relevant as witness testifies that "it's possible" that
Allstate from doing that with its insured? Allstate could have chosen to use the appraisal
A. Not that I am aware of. process.
Q. Just because it's not provided for
explicitly, as you allege, in relation to the bodily
injury portion of the UIM claim, that doesn't
preclude Allstate from using that resource, does
it?
9 Page 49, line 22-Page 50, line 5 Legal conclusion
Q Allstate can't delegate its claim investigation to
its insured or its insured's attorney, correct? [Same as Objection #2]
A. We wouldn't delegate the investigation,
but as a practical matter, we are often told by the
attorney that they're going to gather information
and send it to us rather than give us the means to
obtain that information independently.
10 Page 51, line 19-Page 51, line 23 Relevance; Overruled. Although not directly relevant.
Q But, for instance, if someone has a vague Illustrates the relevant point and testimony that
cracked windshield, you would have to investigate Allstate views itself as having a duty to investigate
that, too, right? all claims.
A. Yes.
11 Page 58, line 23-Page 59, line 9 Assumes facts; Overruled. Question asks about Allstate's
Q. And Allstate understands that there is a strong foundation understanding and not the underlying fact of
public policy in the state of Colorado that whether it actually is strong public policy in
insurance claims should be paid promptly, Colorado. To the extent Allstate did not have such
correct? an understanding, the witness could have testified
A. Yes. as such.
Q. And Allstate understands that there is a strong
public policy in the state of Colorado that
investigations and evaluations should be done
promptly, correct?
A. Yes.
12 Page 60, line 25-Page 61, line 5 Speculation: Overruled. Relevant to extent part of the claims
Q. Isn't it true that when somebody has to go out relevance process requires claimant to provide medical
and, for instance, obtain their own medical records. No indication that Allstate lacks sufficient
records to provide to Allstate, that it costs money experience to form an understanding of the cost
to obtain those records, right? involved in obtaining medical records.
A. Generally speaking, yes.
13 Page 61, line 10-Page 61, line 20 Speculation: Overruled. Relevant to extent part of the claims
Q And if the insured has to pay to get those relevance process requires claimant to provide medical
records, any amount that they receive from records. No indication that Allstate lacks sufficient
Allstate, they have to pay back those costs of experience to form an understanding of the cost
obtaining those records, right? involved in obtaining medical records and Allstate
A. Potentially, yes. would know whether or not that cost is
Q. So that would come out of the money that is reimbursable as part of the claim or paid out of the
going towards their settlement, right? claimant's own pocket.
A. I suppose that's one way to look at it, yes.
14 Page 62, line 6-Page 62, line 9 Speculation: Overruled. Relevant to extent part of the claims
Q. And Allstate understands that sometimes it relevance process requires claimant to provide medical
costs thousands of dollars to obtain medical records. No indication that Allstate lacks sufficient
records from providers. experience to form an understanding of the cost
A. Right. It depends on the case. involved in obtaining medical records
15 Page 66, line 14-Page 66, line 25 403 to the extent Overruled. Question does not relate to post-litigation,
Q. what's Allstate's policy and procedure with it refers to post-litigation but rather is expressly related to reports
respect to providing an expert medical report that obtained "for purposes of a claim evaluation and
it obtains to its insured for purposes of a claim investigation."
evaluation and investigation?
A. We would share that report.
Q. Immediately after they have — Allstate has
received it?
A. That would be the expectation, that, yes, if
we're wanting to assess the claim value based on
a report, that both parties should have access to
the report.
16 Page 76, line 20-Page 77, line 3 Legal Sustained. The Court will instruct the jury on the
Q. does Allstate agree that it is not allowed to conclusion; law. The question/answer provides no evidentiary
deny a claim based upon information or evidence misstates the value and runs the risk of confusing the jury about
that our Colorado court system has said is law; contrary to the appropriate legal standard
inadmissible in a tort trial? the law of the
A. Yeah. I'm not prepared to answer that one. case
17 Page 80, line 20-Page 81, line 11 Scope; legal Overruled. Topic 3 asks Allstate to produce a
Q. Can you read [copy of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-4-609], conclusion; law witness to discuss standards and guidelines for
please? of the case; 403; compliance with applicable law and Allstate agreed
A. "The amount of the coverage available 702 to produce a witness with regard to standards and
pursuant to this section shall not be reduced by a guidelines applied to Plaintiffs claim. Allstate's
setoff from any other coverage, including, but not knowledge of and compliance with this law does
limited to, legal liability insurance, medical not require expert testimony or a legal conclusion.
payments underinsured motorist motor vehicle
insurance."
Q. Does Allstate have any reason to dispute
that that's the law in Colorado?
A. No.
Q. Does Allstate purport to abide by this
provision of Colorado law?
A. Yes.
18 Page 81, line 21-Page 82, line 7 Legal Overruled. Question asks about training and, in
Q. Do you train your adjusters specifically not to conclusion; that context, witness explains why they do or do
seek out collateral source information? foundation; not seek collateral source information based upon
A. We train them on how to evaluate the claim, scope their understanding of the law. In response to
so we have other states that we handle. Topic 3, Allstate agreed to provide a witness to
obviously, and in several of those states, that sort testify as to the standards and guidelines it relied
of collateral source information is admissible, so on when adjusting Plaintiff's Claim.
we do seek it out in those states. We do not seek
it out in Colorado, as a practical matter, because
we know it's not admissible in terms of what my
health insurance paid to — for these bills.
19 Page 83, line 21-Page 84. line 5 Scope: legal Sustained in part and Overruled in Part. Overruled
Q. Allstate agrees it would not be reasonable for conclusion: law as to first Q/A, because it asks for information
its for it to base its decisions on amounts of the case; 403; regarding how Allstate evaluates the value of a
considered from collateral sources, correct? 702 claim, but Sustained as to the second Q/A,
A. Right. If your health insurance paid X. we're because it asks for a legal conclusion — i.e., is
not saying that's what we owe. phrased in terms of what the law requires as
Q. Because that's not what they're legally entitled distinguished from how Allstate applies that law.
to collect, correct? Within scope, as Allstate agreed to produce a
A: Correct. witness to testify as to Allstate's policies and
procedures applicable to the evaluation of
Plaintiffs claim.
20 Page 85, line 9-Page 85, line 20 Scope: legal Overruled. Within scope, as Allstate agreed to
Q. (BY MR. NICHOLS) Does Allstate consider conclusion; law produce a witness to testify as to Allstate's policies
it reasonable to consider the amounts paid by of the case; 403; and procedures applicable to the evaluation of
Medicare or Medicaid or any other collateral 702; vague Plaintiffs claim. Question inquires about how
source in relation to somebody that does not Allstate evaluates medical claims and thus does
receive benefits from that collateral source? not call for expert testimony or a legal conclusion.
A. I'm not prepared to answer that question.
Q. how are Medicare reimbursement rates
relative to Jack Rooney?
A. I'm not prepared to answer the question.
21 Page 89, line 18-Page 89, line 24 Relevance: Sustained. Whether Allstate has ever filed a
Q. And am I correct, then, in the past ten years, scope; 403; lawsuit is overbroad and outside the scope of any
for instance. Allstate has never filed a case in a 404b of the topics on which the witness was designated
court of competent jurisdiction in order to resolve to testify. It is also unclear what relevance this
what it believes to be a reasonable has.
disagreement?
A. Not to my knowledge.
22 Page 90, line 13-Page 90, line 20 Relevance; Sustained. Whether or why Allstate has ever filed
Q. And so why doesn't Allstate ever file that scope: 403; a lawsuit is overbroad and outside the scope of
lawsuit in order to resolve the disagreement ...in 404b any of the topics on which the witness was
a court of competent jurisdiction? designated to testify. It is also unclear what
A. I'm not prepared to say why. relevance this has.
23 Page 92, line 15-Page 93, line 9 Relevance; Sustained in part and Overruled in Part. Sustained
Q. What is Allstate's reasonable basis for not scope: 403; as to the first Q/A, because it is overbroad and
agreeing to incur that expense in filing a lawsuit 404b outside the scope of any of the topics on which the
and making an insured do it instead? witness was designated, but Overruled as to the
A. I — yeah. I'm not prepared to answer that second question, because it asks about how
question. Allstate handles claims similar to the Plaintiffs in
Q. Why, in Colorado, in a UIM claim where this case (UIM claim in Colorado, in which there is
Allstate believes they have a reasonable a dispute about the reasonableness of the claim).
disagreement with their insured, they will The Court does not understand this question to
not agree to incur that expense of filing the relate to "character" and thus Rule 404(b) is
lawsuit so that a court of competent jurisdiction inapplicable.
can make a ruling on the disagreement?
A. Well, if I'm understanding your question —
you're reading into it, but it seems to me like
you're proposing a situation where we've been
asked to incur that expense and refused, and I've
never run into a case where we've been asked to
incur that expense.
24 Page 95, line 5-Page 95, line 14 Relevance; Sustained. Outside the scope of any of the topics
Q. Does Allstate know how much it costs to file scope: 403; and the potential for prejudice and confusion
a lawsuit in the state of Colorado? 404b outweighs any evidentiary value.
A. I'm not prepared to answer that one.
Q: Does Allstate understand that it costs
something in the nature of $450 for somebody to
file a complaint?
A. I'm not prepared to answer it.
25 Page 96, line 1-Page 96, line 15 Relevance; Sustained. Outside the scope of any of the topics
Q. But generally, on your litigation claims, you're scope; 403; and the potential for prejudice and confusion
receiving bills from your attorneys for the costs of 404b outweighs any evidentiary value.
the litigation, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Including like filing fees and things like that,
correct?
A. I assume, yes.
Q: So you know generally that — and Allstate
knows that it costs money to file things in court?
A. Yes.
26 Page 109, line 15-Page 109, line 23 Vague; Overruled. The Court does not find the question of
Q. Based on your review of the factual record in relevance whether Plaintiffs claim was typical of other UIM
this case, does Allstate believe that this is pretty claims vague and whether Plaintiffs claim was
typical of how Allstate underinsured motorist unique or typical may have some relevance to
claims in Colorado are handled? whether Allstate's handling of that claim was
A. Every claim is different, but it was fairly reasonable.
typical.
27 Page 110, line 6-Page 110, line 21 Scope; Overruled. The Court understands Plaintiff to be
Q. After your review of this case, does Allstate relevance; 403; asking whether the adjustor handled Plaintiffs
believe that Deborah Benjamin should be vague claim correctly or whether she should receive
counseled or critiqued in any way with respect to additional training to correct any mistakes made in
her handling of the claim? the handling of the claim. Such an inquiry is clearly
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer that one. relevant and also is within the scope of the topic
Q: Well, I mean, you've reviewed the file addressing how Allstate adjusted Plaintiffs claim.
yourself, right?
A. Yes.
Q. You supervise Ms. Benjamin?
A. I do now, yes.
Q. And based on anything you saw in your
review of the file, do you think that she needs to
be counseled or critiqued?
A. No.
28 Page 113, line 2-Page 113, line 9 Relevance: 403 Sustained. How accessible knowledge of a
Q. Sure. So, I mean, that's something that is specific law about stacking is within Allstate is of
pretty readily ascertained by Allstate, to know limited relevance and the tone of the questioning is
whether or not you have stackable U policies? argumentative and may be prejudicial.
A. Yes.
Q. And so is the fact of whether or not it's
permissible to stack U policies in Colorado —
that's readily accessible to Allstate as well.
correct?
A. Yes.
29 Page 114, line 3-Page 115, line 7 Relevance Sustained in part and Overruled in Part. Sustained
Q. What's your understanding as to how long (there was only as to the questions about how long stacking has
stacking has been permitted in Colorado on one policy, been permitted in Colorado [114:3-22], as the
UM/UIM policies? nothing to length of time it has been permitted is not relevant
A. Well, the statute you gave me has an stack); 403 and the argumentative nature is potentially
effective date of January 1, 2011. So at least that prejudicial, but overruled as to the question about
long. Ms. Benjamin's inquiry into the law as part of her
Q. Sure. Does Allstate have any reason to adjustment of the claim [114:23-115:7]. Although
dispute that the statute was changed, effective Defendant objects on the basis of relevance
January 1, 2008 — because stacking is not involved in this case,
A. No. Defendant has not objected to other testimony
Q. to eliminate anti-stacking language regarding stacking [See 111:12-22] and this
provisions? particular question is specific to the adjuster's
A. I would have to see the statute, but I handling of Plaintiffs claim.
don't have any reason to dispute it.
Q Sure. So Allstate agrees that certainly no later
than 2011, but probably no later than 2008
stacking of U policies has been permitted in
Colorado?
A. Correct.
Q. So when Deborah Benjamin asked Mr.
Rooney's attorneys in December of 2016 to
provide legal authority for their assertion that
stacking of U policies is permitted in Colorado,
isn't it correct that Allstate's position is that that
has been the law in Colorado for at least five
years, but as long as eight years?
A. I don't remember reading the note where
she did that, but if she did, then I would agree
with your question overall.
30 Page 116, line 21-Page 116, line 25 Vague; Sustained. As framed question is vague and
Q. So this is, in fact, the way that Allstate speculative overbroad.
expects its adjusters to act on a daily basis?
A. Generally speaking, yes.
31 Page 117, line 8-Page 117, line 12 Vague; litigation Overruled. The Court does not find the question
Q. Does Allstate agree that its interests are conduct; 403 vague or the elicited response prejudicial or
adverse to Mr. Rooney in this litigation? confusing.
A. Generally speaking, yes.
32 Page 118, line 20-Page 119, line 1 Misstates the Overruled. The question asks for how Allstate
Q. So after reviewing this, does Allstate agree law; misleading understands and applies the law when adjusting
that it is precluded by Colorado from taking a claims. To extent interpreted as statement of law,
recorded statement of its injured insured within 15 not prejudicial. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-301
days of the loss? (prohibiting seeking statement from injured under
A. For the purposes of attempting to negotiate a care of doctor within 15 days after accident for use
settlement of the injury claim, yes. in negotiating settlement or obtaining release).
The Court may instruct the jury that the Court will
provide them with the legal principles they must
apply.
33 Page 128, line 3-Page 128, line 9 Foundation; Overruled. No indication that Allstate, which
Q. Does Allstate understand and agree that speculative regularly processes claims involving medical
when somebody does not have health insurance, injuries, does not have sufficient knowledge
does not have Medicare, does not have Medicaid, regarding write-offs on medical bills.
typically there are no write-offs on their
medical bills of the amount billed?
A. Typically, yes.
34 Page 131, line 1-Page 131, line 11 Scope; Sustained in part and Overruled in Part. Overruled
Q. And it's true, is it not, that Allstate relevance; 403 as to the first question as whether or not there is
systematically never uses that tool in represented such a policy would have applied to the adjustment
claims? of Plaintiffs claim and thus is within the scope of
A. I would disagree with the suggestion that the topic relating to the policies and procedures
there is some systematic policy not to use it. used to adjust Plaintiffs claim and is relevant.
Q. Isn't it true, as an institutional policy, Allstate Sustained as to the second question as no
specifically tells its adjusters, you cannot use the response to the question was elicited at the
CPT Average Cost Dashboard in represented deposition.
claims, that that's only for use in unrepresented
claims?
35 Page 131, line 24-Page 132, line 7 Scope; Overrruled. Overruled as to the first Q/A. because
Q. What am I referring to? relevance the testimony clarifies the tool about which he
A. There is a tool that the adjusters have previously testified [130:20-25] without objection.
available to go look up CPT codes based on Overruled as to the second Q/A because the Court
geography and what the average bill is in that understands that the adjuster utilized the Mitchell
region. program to evaluate Plaintiffs claim and Allstate,
Q. So if it has that tool, why does it need the although objecting to providing a witness with
Mitchell program to look for that? regard to detailed information about the Mitchell
A. Yeah. I'm not prepared to answer. program, agreed to produce a witness with regard
to the investigation, handling, and evaluation of
Plaintiffs claim (Topic 1). Inquiring why the
Mitchell tool was used instead of the other tool thus
appears relevant and within the scope.
36 Page 133, line 11-Page 135, line 12 Scope; Overruled. Allstate agreed to produce a witness to
Q. Okay. And you would agree, would you not, relevance; 403 testify with regard to the policies and procedures
that Allstate has a written policy that when an used to adjust Plaintiffs claim and the witness
adjuster is working on an unrepresented claim, agrees that this policy applied to the adjustment of
they may use the CPT Average Cost Dashboard UIM policies in Colorado.
to help estimate the amounts of those bills based
on the service the injured parties received and the
service area where the injured party was treated.
* * *
Q. And so this is effectively an instruction on
what to do when you're missing specials in a
represented claim versus what to do when you're
missing specials in an unrepresented claim,
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And those policies are different, correct?
* * *
A: Okay. Yes. The two are different.
Q. What's Allstate's reasonable basis for
having different policies and procedures with
respect to what its claim handers should do when
they're missing medical specials on represented
claims as opposed to unrepresented claims?
A. I'm not prepared — I'm not prepared to
answer the question.
Q. You have no understanding of why Allstate
treats represented people differently?
A. I'm not prepared to answer it.
Q. Isn't this information that's regarding how
Allstate handles UM/UIM claims in Colorado?
A. Yes.
37 Page 137, line 4-Page 137, line 15 Scope; Overruled. Allstate agreed to produce a witness to
Q. So can you tell me what the — Allstate's foundation; legal testify with regard to the policies and procedures
reasonable basis is for having a different standard conclusion; used to adjust Plaintiffs claim and the witness
for its adjusters as to what they are supposed to relevance agrees that this policy applied to the adjustment of
do in Colorado when they're missing medical UIM policies in Colorado.
specials on a UIM claim, for claims that are
represented by an attorney as opposed to claims
that are unrepresented by an attorney?
A. And that's what I can't answer. If you
have a question about what is the policy, I can
answer that for you. As to what the reasonable
basis is for having different policies. I am unable
to answer that.
38 Page 137, line 21-Page 138, line 8 Scope; Sustained. Although the Court finds the prior
Q. You don't think that Allstate's required to foundation; legal question regarding the basis for the policy applied
have a reasonable basis for treating its conclusion: to Plaintiffs claim relevant and within the scope,
unrepresented insureds differently than its relevance these questions are argumentative and relate to
represented insureds? institutional knowledge and beliefs of Defendant
A. I'm not prepared to answer the question. that go beyond the scope of the designated topics.
Q. So Allstate doesn't know what its reasonable
basis is for treating individuals that had the exact
same — to which it owes the exact same
contractual duties differently because they have
an attorney or they don't?
A. I'm not prepared to answer the question.
39 Page 138, line 15-Page 139, line 1 Scope; Overruled. Allstate agreed to produce a witness to
Q. But you agree, based upon this page, that foundation; legal testify with regard to the policies and procedures
you systematically have claim investigation tools conclusion; used to adjust Plaintiffs claim and the witness
that are available to adjusters handling relevance agrees that this policy applied to the adjustment of
unrepresented claims that are not available to UIM policies in Colorado.
adjusters handling represented claims?
A. I disagree with that, too. It's not that the tool
— the CPT Average Cost Dashboard is
unavailable to represented adjusters. It's a
matter of we don't estimate the bills on
represented claims.
Q. Why?
A. You're back into I can't answer territory. I'm
not prepared.
40 Page 139, line 8-Page 139, line 13 Relevance Overruled. The Court finds it relevant that the CPT
Q. Do — the claim handlers that you supervise Average Cost Dashboard was an available tool to
that are dealing with represented claims, do you the adjuster evaluating Plaintiffs claim.
ever get those requests to use the CPT Average
Cost Dashboard in represented claims?
A. They wouldn't have to ask me if they
wanted to use it. They could just go use it.
41 Page 143, line 2-Page 144, line 7 Relevance Overruled. Allstate agreed to produce a witness to
Q. And as you stated before the break, there is testify with regard to the policies and procedures
a different standard for what adjusters are used to adjust Plaintiffs claim and the witness
expected to do when they're missing medical agrees that this policy applied to the adjustment of
specials in an unrepresented claim as opposed to UIM policies in Colorado.
a represented claim, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And what's Allstate's reasonable basis for
having that differentiation?
A. Well, with the represented claims, we are —
we expect that the attorney has obtained the
information already, basically; that in order to
know what the claim is going to be worth, they've
obtained medical records and bills. So — and if
they haven't, they certainly have the experience
and ability to go out and obtain them, the
wherewithal; whereas with an unrepresented
person, they're lacking that experience, generally
speaking. So it's an effort to try to assist them to
be able to resolve their claim.
Q. Then why — if Allstate has that expectation that
the attorneys will provide them the medical
records, why, in a represented claim, does
Allstate still submit requests to attorneys to
provide Allstate with medical records release
authorizations?
A. Well, we still want to have the ability to
investigate the claim as best we can. If the
attorney's going to do that on their own, then as
long as we're getting the information we need,
we're fine with that. But we always want to give
the option of handling that investigation on our
own.
42 Page 157, line 10-Page 157, line 14 Legal conclusion Overruled. The Court does not find the mere use
Q. What's Allstate's reasonable basis for not of the phrase "reasonable basis" to call for a legal
[raising issue of medical release language]? conclusion. Indeed. Defendant does not object to
A. I mean, you would have to ask Deb why she testimony in which the witness testified that Allstate
didn't raise that issue. needs to have a "reasonable basis" for refusing to
consider a portion of the claim. [57:16-20] The
Court may instruct the jury that the Court will
provide them with the legal principles they must
apply.
43 Page 158, line 8-Page 158, line 13 Scope; Overruled. Witness testified that the medical
Q. Did the med pay department ever make use relevance; 403 records authorization provided was for med pay, so
of the medical records release authorization? the question is relevant and within the scope of
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to talk about what Topic 1 relating to Defendant's investigation,
the med pay department did or didn't do. handling, and evaluation of Plaintiffs UIM claim.
Although the medical portion of the claim may have
been handled separately, the Court finds the
question within the scope of the designated topic.
44 Page 159, line 7-Page 159, line 11 Scope; Overruled. Witness testified that the medical
Q. Did the med pay department use Mitchell in relevance; 403 records authorization provided was for med pay, so
evaluating the med pay claim? the question is relevant and within the scope of
A. I'm not prepared to answer that one. Topic 1 relating to Defendant's investigation,
handling, and evaluation of Plaintiffs UIM claim.
Although the medical portion of the claim may have
been handled separately, the Court finds the
question within the scope of the designated topic.
45 Page 174, line 23-Page 175, line 1 Vague; Overruled. The Court does not find the question
Q. And that is true with respect to any of relevance vague, nor is there any indication that the witness
Allstate's decisions; they have to be reasonable, did not understand the question, and Defendant's
correct? view on its obligation to make reasonable decisions
A: Yes. in the adjustment of Plaintiffs claim is relevant.
46 Page 175, line 21-Page 176, line 17 Scope; Sustained. The Court agrees that the witness's
Q. I just sent you a Washington Post article relevance; 404; opinion with regard to Mr. Wilson's alleged
dated Sunday April 30, 2006. and the portion I'd hearsay; 403; statement is outside the scope of the designated
like to direct you to is on page 3. And you see authentication topics and—taken out of context and without
where Mr. Wilson is being quoted there in the application to the specific claim at issue—is of
third paragraph? limited relevance that is outweighed by the
Q. Can you read that quote? potential for prejudice and confusion.
A. Just the quote, without the context around it
is, "Our obligation is to earn a return for our
shareholders, not to assume risks from people for
a price that is not fair and adequate."
Q. Allstate's claims department's position is
that it's their obligation to earn a return for its
shareholders?
A. Our obligation is to pay what we owe on
the claims that are presented to us.
Q. So you disagree with Mr. Wilson on that
point?
A. I'm not prepared to opine on Mr. Wilson's
statement.
47 Page 177, line 8-Page 179, line 1 Scope; Sustained. The Court agrees that the witness's
Q. Can you turn to page 7 of 17 on this, and it relevance; 404; opinion with regard to Ms. Katzman's alleged
appears to be a Bloomberg article that we're hearsay; 403; statement is outside the scope of the designated
looking at, correct? authentication topics and—taken out of context and without
A. Yes. application to the specific claim at issue—is of
* * * limited relevance that is outweighed by the
Q. And that paragraph right above it is what I potential for prejudice and confusion.
want to direct your attention to. And here, do you
agree, do you not — Allstate agrees, does it not,
that one of its former claim handlers is saying that
its supervisors told them to lie?
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer any
questions about this thing.
Q. Do you disagree that this person said this?
A. Said what?
Q. Do you disagree that Ms. Katzman said that
we were told to lie by our supervisors?
A. it's the quote on the page, but I'm not
prepared to talk about this at all.
Q. Do you disagree that somebody at Allstate
said it's tough to look at people and know you're
lying?
A. Again, all I can do is read what's here. I'm not
prepared in any way — I've never seen this
before.
Q. You agree that's what it says, though?
A. That's what it says.
Q. And she's talking about her work at Allstate,
correct?
A. It would appear
48 Page 181, line 5-Page 181, line 7 Relevance; Overruled. The question is a follow-up to the prior
Q. And the CPT Average Cost Dashboard, scope Q/A—to which there is no objection—about the
correct? tools available to adjusters and the witness had
A. Yes. previously testified with regard to the use of the
CPT Average Cost Dashboard.
49 Page 181, line 8-Page 181, line 19 Scope; Sustained. Allstate's knowledge of a specific court
Q. Does Allstate acknowledge that the U.S. relevance; legal ruling—as distinguished to Allstate's application of
District Court for the District of Colorado has held conclusion; law that holding to the claim at issue—is outside the
that it is the amount of the medical expenses that of the case scope of the designated topics and is not relevant.
are billed rather than the amount which is
ultimately paid by collateral sources that
establishes the amount of damages recoverable
under Colorado law for medical expenses
sustained by an accident victim?
A. Yeah. I didn't review the ruling to know.
Q: And that was in the — that was Judge Arguello
in Robinson versus Terwilliger case. Have you
ever heard of that?
50 Page 182, line 5-Page 182, line 11 Relevance; legal Sustained. Allstate's knowledge of a specific court
Q. Does Allstate acknowledge that Magistrate conclusion; ruling—as distinguished to Allstate's application of
Judge Wong specifically told Allstate that it scope; law of the that holding to the claim at issue—is outside the
cannot reasonably rely on any collateral sources case scope of the designated topics and is not relevant.
to evaluate medical bills for trial, in the Romero
versus Allstate case?
A. I'm not prepared to answer that one.
51 Page 188, line 13-Page 188, line 18 Relevance: Overruled. Witness agreed with proposition that
Q: Despite the fact that Allstate was taking the misstates Allstate had concluded that Plaintiff didn't have a
position that he didn't have a valid UIM claim at evidence/argum valid UIM claim [186:12-19] and Defendant is not
that time and thus was denying it? entative (as objecting to that testimony. This question merely
A. We were still handling a med pay claim that it denial) expands on that unobjected-to testimony.
would have been relevant to.
52 Page 190, line 24-Page 191, line 9 Post-litigation; Overruled. Question addresses why a medical
Q: What's Allstate's reasonable basis for waiting relevance: 403 expert was not engaged during the pre-litigation
until October of 2018 to hire a medical expert to evaluation of Plaintiffs claim.
review Mr. Rooney's claim and conduct an IME?
A. It was at that point that we'd had enough
information to review to believe that there was
some question about the relatedness of the
surgery that he was claiming was related to the
accident. So we wanted to get the medical expert
opinion so we could resolve that question.
53 Page 193, line 18-Page 194, line 1 Legal Overruled. The question is not framed in terms of
Q: Does Allstate agree that Dr. Castro's opinions. conclusion: a statement of law, but rather clarifies Allstate's
then, could not logically explain or justify any of misstates the rationale for engaging Dr. Castro. The Court may
Allstate's pre-litigation decisions or conduct law; relevance instruct the jury that the Court will provide them
because his opinions did not exist prior to the with the legal principles they must apply.
commencement of litigation?
A. I don't think we asked him to justify our
handling. We've asked him to help us resolve the
value dispute that's ongoing in this case.
54 Page 194, line 24-Page 195, line 6 403; 404; post-litigation Overruled. Although somewhat argumentative, the
Q. But Allstate often hires doctors to offer conduct Court does not find the question or resulting
opinions against their insureds in lawsuits such as answer prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The
this regarding injuries or treatment its insureds Court does not understand this question to relate
were claiming were caused by a particular to "character" and thus Rule 404 is inapplicable.
accident, correct?
A. We hire medical experts where we need their
opinion to help resolve a dispute.
55 Page 197, line 2-Page 197, line 13 Scope Overruled. The Court finds that the questions
Q. Does Allstate know of any medical providers relate to how Mitchell DecisionPoint was used to
that offer services for the rates that are produced evaluate Plaintiffs specific claim, and Allstate
during the Mitchell DecisionPoint program? agreed to produce a witness to address Allstate's
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer that. evaluation of Plaintiffs claim. Moreover, Plaintiff
Q. Does Allstate know of any medical providers has designated subsequent testimony asking
that would be willing to accept the amount that similar questions regarding Allstate's knowledge of
Allstate evaluated to be reasonable using the the prices that medical providers would charge or
Mitchell DecisionPoint program in Mr. Rooney's accept for services [281:12-22], to which
claim? Defendant has not objected.
A. I'm not prepared to answer it.
56 Page 198, line 20-Page 199, line 20 Scope: and see Sustained in Part and Overruled in Part. Sustained
Q. What is Allstate's understanding as to what objection and as to the first three Q/As [198:20-199:10] as they
Sentry Rules are in the Mitchell DecisionPoint discussion on relate to the operation of Mitchell DecisionPoint in
program? the record at pp. general and the Court understands that Allstate
A. I'm not prepared to answer questions with 199:21-201:9 offered to produce a different witness on those
how Mitchell works. topics and Plaintiff declined. Overruled as to final
Q. Aren't the Sentry Rules, though, identified in two questions [199:11-20], because they relate
those training materials that are sitting in front of more directly to how Plaintiffs specific claim was
you? evaluated, which is a topic for which Allstate
A. They may be, but I'm not prepared to answer agreed to produce a witness. about the Mitchell tool.
Q. Do you know what a Sentry Rule is?
A. No, I'm not prepared to answer that.
Q. Isn't it true that Sentry Rules were applied to
Mr. Rooney's medical bills via the Mitchell
DecisionPoint program in this case?
A. I imagine that they were.
Q. But you don't know what Sentry Rules are?
A. I'm not prepared to answer about Sentry
Rules.
57 Page 201, line 16-Page 201, line 22 Scope: Sustained. The question appears to relate to the
Q. What is the Mitchell centralized input team? relevance operation of Mitchell DecisionPoint in general and
A. It's pretty much what it sounds like. It's just a the Court understands that Allstate offered to
centralized group that we can submit medical bills produce a different witness on those topics and
to, to have them input the bills into the tool so that Plaintiff declined.
the adjuster can then utilize the tool.
58 Page 207, line 1-Page 208, line 5 Scope; Sustained. The referenced email relating to a
Q. Here we have an e-mail dated January 7, foundation; separate lawsuit is outside the scope of the
2019. This is in regards to the Herrera versus hearsay; designated topics, as is the document retention
Allstate matter. Are you familiar with that case at relevance; 403 policy within the Mitchell Decision Point program.
all?
A. It doesn't ring a bell.
Q. Okay. And you recognize Ms. Wagner, the
author of this e-mail?
A. Yes.
Q. And she is outside counsel for Allstate on
some first-party litigation in Colorado, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And it says, "In relation to your question
regarding the Mitchell consults and your request
for the reports generated on various dates, it is
our understanding that when Mitchell is updated
for any reason, the report is updated and the prior
reports are not retained." Do you see that?
24 ...... A ... Yeah.
Q: Is that your understanding of how documents
are or are not saved in the Mitchell program?
A. Yeah, and I would say that this is still
consistent with what I'm saying, as well.
59 Page 211, line 21-Page 212, line 5 Scope Overruled. This testimony relates directly to how
Q. Wouldn't that comments section give us the Plaintiffs specific claim was evaluated, which is a
explanation for why she decided to override these topic for which Allstate agreed to produce a
amounts that Mitchell generated? witness, and relates specifically to the prior
A. That is likely what would be there, yes. testimony [211:5-20] to which there is no objection.
Q. And so without that, we have no way of
knowing what the basis for those overrides were,
do we?
A. In this case no.
60 Page 212, line 6-Page 212, line 19 Scope: Sustained. Plaintiff has not designated testimony
Q: Allstate understands that Medicaid pays much relevance: from this witness indicating that Medicaid or
less for a service than what a doctor typically foundation medicare rates were used to evaluate his claim
charges, correct? and thus it is neither relevant nor within the scope
A. I didn't — I didn't come prepared to talk about of the topics for which this witness was designated.
Medicare — Medicaid reimbursement rates, but
generally speaking, yes, that's been my
experience.
Q. And Allstate understands that some doctors
won't even treat Medicare patients?
Q. Because of that?
A. And again, I didn't come prepared to talk
about that. But from my personal experience. I've
heard of that being the case.
61 Page 212, line 20-Page 213, line 2 Scope; law of Sustained. Plaintiff has not designated testimony
Q. And Allstate understands that the state of the case; from this witness indicating that Medicaid or
Colorado has determined that amounts paid by foundation Medicare rates were used to evaluate his claim
Medicare or Medicaid are also collateral sources [215:24-216:5] and thus it lacks foundation, is not
that are inadmissible in determining what a relevant, and is not within the scope of the topics
customer is legally entitled to collect from the for which this witness was designated. The Court
tortfeasor? also finds the question misleading and given that
A. Yeah. I'm not prepared to answer that no response was given, it has no evidentiary value.
question.
62 Page 213, line 3-Page 213, line 22 Scope; law of Sustained. Plaintiff has not designated testimony
Q. And even though Allstate is aware that the case; from this witness indicating that Medicaid or
amounts Medicare or Medicaid charge are foundation Medicare rates were used to evaluate his claim
inadmissible for determining what a customer's [215:24-216:5] and thus it lacks foundation, is not
legally entitled to collect. Allstate still, as a regular relevant, and is not within the scope of the topics
institutional practice, utilizes a service that gives it for which this witness was designated. Moreover,
Medicare reimbursement rates to use for the question relates to the operation of Mitchell
negotiating with claimants? Decision Point in general, a topic for which this
Q. Is that correct? witness was not designated. The Court also finds
A. I interpret your question to be asking me how the question misleading and given that no
the Mitchell program works, and that's not response was given, it has no evidentiary value.
something I came prepared to discuss.
Q. I am correct, am I not, that it would be utterly
unreasonable for Allstate to decide to use
collateral source numbers that it knows are
inadmissible in a court of law in order to avoid
making Fisher payments?
A. I'm not prepared to ask (sic) that; it sounds
like you're asking me for a legal conclusion.
63 Page 215, line 16-Page 216, line 5 Scope Sustained in Part and Overruled in Part. Sustained
Q. And Allstate agrees that the Mitchell as to the first Q/A as it relates to the operation of
Decision Point program, in some way, uses Mitchell DecisionPoint in general and the Court
Medicare reimbursement rates in evaluating the understands that Allstate offered to produce a
reasonableness of medical expenses being different witness on those topics and Plaintiff
claimed by a person injured in a claim? declined. Overruled as to final Q/A, because it
A. Yeah, I didn't come prepared today to talk relates directly to how Plaintiffs specific claim was
about how the Mitchell program works. evaluated, which is a topic for which Allstate
Q. Well, didn't Allstate use Medicare agreed to produce a witness.
reimbursement data to evaluate the reasonable
value of Mr. Rooney's medical expenses in this
case?
A. Yeah. Again. I'm not prepared to talk about
how the Mitchell program works.
64 Page 218, line 8-Page 218, line 14 Scope Overruled. There is subsequent testimony [221:9-11]
Q. What is an EDR limit? —to which Defendant does not object
A. Short for expected recovery date. establishing that an ERD adjustment was used in
Q. How was an expected recovery date evaluating Plaintiffs claim. This testimony thus is
calculated? relevant to the adjustment of Plaintiffs claim, a
A. I'm not prepared to answer that. topic for which the witness was designated.
65 Page 219, line 10-Page 219, line 24 Scope Sustained. Q/A relates to the operation of Mitchell
Q. So isn't this saying that Mitchell is denying all Decision Point in general and the Court
soft tissue medical treatment after 56 days of understands that Allstate offered to produce a
treatment automatically? different witness on those topics and Plaintiff
Q. And I know you're going to tell me you didn't declined..
come prepared to talk about it.
A. I didn't know if you were waiting on me or
not. Right. I'm not prepared to talk about how
Mitchell works.
66 Page 221, line 12-Page 221, line 19 Scope Overruled. The Q/A is specific to how Plaintiffs
Q. And so it's correct that Allstate's expectation claim was adjusted and thus is within the scope of
would be that Deborah Benjamin would review Topic One for which the witness was designated.
that adjustment and determine whether or not that
marking off treatment after 56 days is reasonable
or not correct?
A. If that's the specific rule that's run in there,
yes.
67 Page 233, line 6-Page 233, line 11 Scope Overruled. The context of the question relates to
Q. Does the Mitchell program anywhere the specific Mitchell program report generated for
delineate whether these reports are for UM/UIM Plaintiffs claim and thus the Court finds it to be
or med pay? Is there any way we can look at within the scope of Topic One for which the
these reports from the outside and make that witness was designated.
determination?
A. No. I mean — no not that I can tell.
68 Page 235, line 12-Page 235, line 15 403: law of the Overruled. The Q/A seeks to clarify the scope of
Q. Would the state-specific book contain case information available to the adjuster. It does not
information about Colorado's billed-versus-paid include a statement of law and the Court does not
law? find it prejudicial or confusing.
A. I believe it does, yes.
69 Page 238, line 2-Page 238, line 10 Scope Sustained. The Q/A appears to seek information
Q. Are you aware of whether or not Colorado — regarding how the Colossus software works.
or, excuse me, Allstate does anything to tune Based upon the objections to the deposition notice
Colossus for specifically Colorado?. and other information provided to the Court, the
A. I'm not prepared to answer that. Court understands that Defendant only agreed to
Q. Do you know what I mean when I use the provide a witness to testify with regard to the use
word "tune"? of Colossus specific to the evaluation of Plaintiffs
A. Only very generally. claim. The Q/A thus appears to exceed the scope
of the topic for which the witness was designated.
70 Page 265, line 25-Page 266, line 19 Scope; Sustained in Part and Overruled in Part. Overruled
Q. Such as why isn't there a similar letter for relevance as to the first Q/A [265:25-266:3] as it is a
Mitchell DecisionPoint? continuation of the prior questioning [265:3-24] to
A. I'm not prepared to answer. which there is no objection. Sustained as to the
Q. Or the CPT Average Cost Dashboard? remaining Q/As [266:4-19] as they seek
A. I'm not prepared to answer. information regarding how the software works,
Q. Do you know where the CPT Average Cost which is beyond the scope of any of the designated
Dashboard gets its data, what data is being topics.
related through that program?
A. I'm not prepared to answer.
Q. Presumably, since it's an average cost
dashboard, it's not an average payment
dashboard, it's the average amounts of how much
medical providers are charging, not how much
they are accepting as payment for services,
correct?
A. That's my assumption.
71 Page 279, line 2-Page 279, line 10 Post-litigation; Overruled. The Court does not find the mere use
Q. What's Allstate's reasonable basis for not relevance; 403; of the phrase "reasonable basis" to call for a legal
having paid him UIM benefits as of today? legal conclusion; conclusion. Indeed. Defendant does not object to
A. Well, at the time the litigation was initiated, foundation testimony in which the witness testified that Allstate
we were still trying to investigate the relatedness needs to have a "reasonable basis" for refusing to
of the surgery. Without the surgery being related, consider a portion of the claim. [57:16-20] The
it appeared that he had been adequately Court may instruct the jury that the Court will
compensated by the hundred thousand dollars provide them with the legal principles they must
that he received from American Family. apply. The Court does not find the Q/A to be
prejudicial or confusing, and it is relevant to the
handling of Plaintiffs claim.
72 Page 282, line 6-Page 282, line 10 Scope; Sustained. The Q/A relates to information
Q. Can the CPT Average Cost Dashboard be relevance regarding how the software works generally, which
used to estimate the cost of future medical is beyond the scope of any of the designated
services? topics.
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer.
73 Page 282, line 11-Page 282, line 14 Scope Sustained. The Q/A does not appear relevant or
Q. Is Allstate familiar with an individual by the related to the topics for which the witness was
name of Jeffrey Thomas? designated as, at best, it relates to the use of
A. I don't personally know that name, no. Mitchell generally.
74 Page 283, line 2-Page 283, line 9 Scope; 403; 404; Sustained. The Q/A is related to the use of Michell
Q: Does Allstate disagree with Mr. Thomas's hearsay; generally—a topic for which the witness was not
statement in the Chung case that it uses the foundation; designated. The Court understands that Allstate
Mitchell DecisionPoint program as a cost-saving relevance offered to produce a different witness on those
measure which it then uses to in turn pass on topics and Plaintiff declined. Moreover, as
those savings to its customers in the form of phrased, the question is confusing and prejudicial
reduced premiums? as it references a statement made in a different
A. I'm not prepared to answer the question case by an individual unassociated with the current
case and without context.
75 Page 283, line 13-Page 284, line 7 Scope; Sustained. None of the topics for which the
Q. does Allstate know how much Mr. Rooney's relevance; 403 witness was designated relate to the premiums
paid in UM/UIM premiums ... [d]uring the time paid by Plaintiff for his UIM coverage.
that he's been insured with Allstate?
A. I didn't come prepared to answer that.
Q. Does Allstate know whether or not his UIM
premiums have decreased at all in the time that
he's been insured with ... Allstate for UM/UIM?
A. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer.
Q. Would Allstate be surprised to find out that
his premiums never decreased during the time —
his UM/UIM premiums have never decreased
during the time that he's been insured with
Allstate?
A. Yep, not prepared to answer.
