Geiger v. Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Case No. 23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS
DAWN GEIGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHUBB GROUP,
CHUBB, and
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE GROUP d/b/a CHUBB,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion Relief from
Order. [Docket No. 94]. On March 26, 2024, defendants Chubb Indemnity Insurance
Company (“Chubb Indemnity”), Federal Insurance Company (“FIC”), Chubb INA
Holdings Inc., (“INA Holdings”), and Chubb Group Holdings Inc (“Chubb Group
Holdings”) (collectively, the “Other Chubb Entities”) and Great Northern Insurance
Company (“Great Northern”) filed a response. Docket No. 102. On April 18, 2024,
plaintiff Dawn Geiger filed a reply. Docket No. 106. The Court has subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On April 7, 2023, Ms. Geiger filed the present lawsuit against defendant Chubb
Indemnity in the District Court for Denver County, Colorado. Docket No. 5 at 2. On
April 28, 2023, Chubb Indemnity removed the case to this Court. Docket No. 1. On
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
May 24, 2023, Ms. Geiger filed an amended complaint, adding the following defendants:
Great Northern, Chubb Limited, Chubb Group, Chubb, Great Northern Insurance Group,
FIC, Chubb INA Holdings, and Chubb Group Holdings. Docket No. 22. Ms. Geiger
asserts one claim against defendants, pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1117, for
failing to provide the required insurance policy disclosures within the statutory
timeframe. Id. at 3, ¶¶ 23-29. Ms. Geiger requests $82,000 in penalties, in addition to
attorneys’ fees and costs. Id., ¶ 29.
On February 27, 2024, the Court granted Great Northern’s motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and granted in part and denied in part the Other Chubb Entities’
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Docket No. 91 at 18. The Court dismissed
Ms. Geiger’s claims against Great Northern and the Other Chubb Entities with
prejudice. 1 Id. The Court dismissed Ms. Geiger’s claims against Great Northern and
the Other Chubb Entities because they were barred under the statute of limitations. Id.
at 13, 16.
II. 	ANALYSIS
Ms. Geiger moves for relief from the Court’s February 27, 2024 Order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6). Docket No. 94 at 3, ¶¶ 4-6. She argues that
Weatherill v. State Farm, Case No. 2023CA001172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023), a case
1 Ms. Geiger states that she “moves this Court for relief from the Orders issued
on February 27, 2024.” Docket No. 94 at 3, ¶ 6. On February 27, 2024, the Court
granted Chubb Limited’s motion to dismiss because the Court found that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over Chubb Limited. Docket No. 92 at 12-13. The Court
determines that Ms. Geiger does not seek relief from the order dismissing Chubb
Limited, id., because the Court did not dismiss the claims against Chubb Limited due to
the statute of limitations. In her motion for relief under Rule 60, Ms. Geiger only seeks
relief on the basis that there is allegedly a change in law regarding the statute of
limitations. See Docket No. 94 at 3-4.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals, 2 is “directly analogous to the exact
issue in the subject litigation.” Id. at 4, ¶ 14. Ms. Geiger claims that the “issue at
controversy in Weatherill is whether the Weatherill’s [sic] C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 claim was
equitably tolled.” Id., ¶ 15. She requests that “all matters be stayed in this litigation
pending the outcome of the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Weatherill.” Id. at 5,
¶ 17. Great Northern and the Other Chubb Entities argue that the Weatherill case is
“materially different from this case, legally and factually.” Docket No. 102 at 4. Great
Northern and the Other Chubb Entities further argue that Weatherill “will not change the
legal landscape for this Court” because, “[w]hile precedential decisions from
intermediate appellate courts may be considered as persuasive authority in predicting
state law, the Court is not bound by those decision if it believes the Colorado Supreme
Court would decide otherwise.” Id. at 7.
Sometimes referred to as a “catch-all provision,” see United States v. Headley,
2023 WL 6240090, at *3 (10th Cir. Sept. 26, 2023), Rule 60(b)(6) provides that a final
judgment, order, or proceeding can be amended or withdrawn for “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). The Tenth Circuit has interpreted Rule
60(b)(6)’s scope narrowly, noting that “a district court may grant a Rule 60(b)(6) motion
only in extraordinary circumstances and only when necessary to accomplish justice.”
Cashner v. Freedom Stores, Inc., 98 F.3d 572, 579 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, relief
2 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court docket in Case No.
2023CA001172, which shows that the Colorado Court of Appeals has yet to issue an
opinion in Weatherill. See Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1256, 1264 n.24 (10th Cir.
2006) (holding that a court may take judicial notice of facts which are a matter of public
record when considering a motion to dismiss); Stan Lee Media, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co.,
774 F.3d 1292, 1298 n.2 (10th Cir. 2014) (noting that a court may “take judicial notice of
documents and docket materials filed in other courts”).
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
under Rule 60(b)(6) “is even more difficult to attain” than under other Rule 60(b)
provisions and “is appropriate only when it offends justice to deny such relief.” Zurich N.
Am. v. Matrix Serv., Inc., 426 F.3d 1281, 1293 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted); see also Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 04-cv-
01619-LTB-BNB, 2008 WL 5104813, at *6 (D. Colo. Dec. 3, 2008).
However, regardless of whether extraordinary circumstances exist due to
Weatherill, Ms. Geiger cannot seek relief from the Court’s February 27, 2024 Order
under Rule 60(b) because it was not a final order. Rule 60(b) “only applies to final
orders or judgments.” Raytheon Constructors, Inc. v. Asarco Inc., 368 F.3d 1214, 1217
(10th Cir. 2003). “[A]ny order . . . however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties” is instead “subject to
revision at any time” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Id.; see also Price v.
Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“every order short of a final decree is
subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (citation omitted); Wagoner
v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a motion for
reconsideration filed prior to final judgment “was nothing more than an interlocutory
motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise
interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment.”). The Court’s February 27, 2024
Order only adjudicated the claims of Great Northern and the Other Chubb Entities.
Docket No. 91 at 18-19. It did not adjudicate the claims of Chubb Group, Chubb, and
Great Northern Insurance Group, who the Other Chubb Entities assert are not proper
defendants, instead ordering Ms. Geiger to show cause why these defendants should
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Id. at 19. Therefore, Ms. Geiger cannot
seek relief under Rule 60, and the Court will deny her motion.
Ms. Geiger requests “all matters be stayed in this litigation pending the outcome
of the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in Weatherill.” Docket No. 94 at 5, ¶ 17.
When “a party seeks a stay pending resolution of an issue in a separate action,”
the Court applies the factors set forth in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936).
Cupat v. Palantir Techs., Inc., No. 22-cv-02384-CNS-SKC, 2023 WL 2585298, at *1 (D.
Colo. Mar. 21, 2023). Pursuant to Landis, courts weigh the following factors in
determining whether to stay proceedings:
(1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) the
hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and
(3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or
complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to
result from a stay.
Id. at *2.
Ms. Geiger does not address the Landis factors. She does not explain why it is
appropriate to stay proceedings pending the disposition of a non-binding Colorado
Court of Appeals case that, as the Other Chubb Entities note, is factually distinct from
the instant case. Docket No. 102 at 4-6. Accordingly, the Court will not stay
proceedings pending appeal in Weatherill. See Chile Colonial, LLC v. Trader Joe’s Co.,
No. 20-cv-02281-DDD-KLM, 2020 WL 12432440, at *2 (D. Colo. Dec. 2, 2020) (denying
stay, in part, where the claims at issue would “not necessarily be resolved” in the
separate proceeding and that separate “ruling would not be binding”); Reps. Comm. for
Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, 2024 WL 1012958, at *1, *3 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 8, 2024)
(where the party argued that a stay was warranted because a “directly related” action
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
was pending appeal, the court denied a stay because it “remain[ed] unconvinced that
the issues overlap such that the Court is required to impose a stay when it is otherwise
ready to decide the issues at hand”).
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Rule 60 Motion Relief from Order [Docket No. 94] is
DENIED.
DATED March 14, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
_____	__	__	__	__	_________	__	___	______________	________________ _______________	__	___	__	__	__	_______________________________________________________
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 132 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6