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 the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) filed by the defendants Chubb Group,
Chubb, and Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb [Docket No. 104]. 1 On May
17, 2024, plaintiff Dawn Geiger filed a response. Docket No. 114. On May 31, 2024,
Chubb Group, Chubb, and Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb filed a reply.
Docket No. 117. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332.
1 Chubb Group, Chubb, and Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb argue
that they are not legal entities that lack the capacity to be used under Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(b). Docket No. 104 at 1 n.1. They assert that Great Northern Insurance Company
(“Great Northern”) is the real party in interest. Id. The Court dismissed Ms. Geiger’s
claims against Great Northern in its February 27, 2024 Order. Docket No. 91 at 18.
However, because of their uncertainty regarding the procedure for non-legal entities to
file such a motion, “if procedurally necessary,” they ask the Court to deem this motion
filed on behalf of Great Northern. Docket No. 104 at 1 n.1.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 6

2
I. 	BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2018, Ms. Geiger was involved in a motor vehicle collision with
another driver. Docket No. 22 at 2, ¶ 14. On April 7, 2023, Ms. Geiger filed this case
against defendant Chubb Indemnity Insurance Company (“Chubb Indemnity”), the
alleged insurer for the other driver, 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 May 24, 2023, Ms. Geiger filed an amended complaint, adding the
following defendants: Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”), Chubb
Limited, Chubb Group, Chubb, Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb (“Great
Northern Insurance Group”), Federal Insurance Company (“FIC”), Chubb INA Holdings,
Inc. (“Chubb INA Holdings”), and Chubb Group Holdings, Inc. (“Chubb Group
Holdings”). Docket No. 22. Ms. Geiger asserts one claim against defendants, pursuant
to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1117, id. at 3, ¶¶ 23-29, which allows a potential claimant in
an automobile accident to obtain a copy of the insurance policy issued to the at-fault
driver by making a statutory request to the at-fault driver’s insurer. Colo. Rev. Stat.
§ 10-3-1117(2)(a). If the insurer fails to provide the policy within thirty days after
receiving the request, then the claimant may recover statutory penalties against the
insurer. Id. Ms. Geiger requests $82,000 in penalties, in addition to attorneys’ fees and
costs. Docket No. 22 at 3, ¶ 29.
On February 27, 2024, the Court granted Great Northern’s motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Docket No. 91 at 18. The Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss of Chubb Indemnity, FIC, Chubb INA Holdings, and Chubb Group
Holdings (collectively, the “Other Chubb Entities”). Id. The Court further ordered Ms.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 6

3
Geiger to show cause why Chubb, Chubb Group, and Great Northern Insurance Group
(collectively, the “Remaining Chubb Parties”) should not be dismissed from this case
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) for Ms. Geiger’s failure to serve the Remaining Chubb
Parties. Id. On March 19, 2024, Ms. Geiger filed proofs of service for the Remaining
Chubb Parties. 2 Docket Nos. 96, 97, 98, 100, 101.
II. 	ANALYSIS
The Remaining Chubb Parties argue that Ms. Geiger’s amended complaint
should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) because (1) they were not
properly served, 3 (2) the Remaining Chubb Parties do not have the capacity to be sued
and are not the proper parties for suit; and (3) Ms. Geiger’s claims against the
Remaining Chubb Parties are barred under the statute of limitations. Docket No. 104 at
2. Ms. Geiger argues that she perfected service on the Remaining Chubb Parties as
evidenced by the proofs of service that she filed. Docket No. 114 at 3, ¶ 4. Ms. Geiger
argues that the Remaining Chubb Parties are proper defendants because they have
registered agents that accept service on their behalf. Id. at 4, ¶ 8. Ms. Geiger contends
that “various communications and documents” show that the Remaining Chubb Parties
do “business as the entity, Chubb” and are underwriters of Chubb. Id. Ms. Geiger
argues that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled. Id. at 6, ¶ 11.
2 Ms. Geiger filed a proof of service for Great Northern, Docket No. 99; however,
Great Northern was dismissed pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2024 Order.
Docket No. 91 at 18.
3 The Remaining Chubb Parties have not waived their right to object to
insufficient service of process because they raise the argument regarding insufficient
service of process in the instant motion to dismiss. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1); see Docket
No. 104 at 3.
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 6

4
The Court will first address whether the Remaining Chubb Parties should be
dismissed because they do not have the capacity to be sued under Fed. R. Civ. P.
17(b). Pursuant to Rule 17(b), for an entity that is neither a corporation nor an
individual, its capacity to be sued is controlled by Rule 17(b)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b).
Rule 17(b)(3) states:
(b) Capacity to Sue or Be Sued. Capacity to sue or be sued is determined as
follows:
. . .
(3) for all other parties, by the law of the state where the court is located,
except that:
(A) a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such
capacity under that state’s law may sue or be sued in its common
name to enforce a substantive right existing under the United
States Constitution or laws; and
(B) 28 U.S.C. §§ 754 and 959(a) govern the capacity of a receiver
appointed by a United States court to sue or be sued in a United
States court.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3).
The Remaining Chubb Parties attach to their motion to dismiss the declaration of
Brandon M. Peene, Managing Counsel, Global Corporate Affairs, for the Chubb Group
of Insurance Companies, which he says is referred to interchangeably as “Chubb” and
“Chubb Group.” Docket No. 104-1 at 1, ¶ 1. Mr. Peene states that the “Chubb Group of
Insurance Companies,” “Chubb Group,” and “Chubb” are not insurance companies or
legal entities. Id. at 2, ¶ 3. Rather, Mr. Peene states that they are “marketing/branding
names used to refer, collectively, to various separately organized and capitalized
subsidiaries of Chubb Limited providing insurance and related services.” Id. Mr. Peene
states that “Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb” is not a legal entity or
marketing/branding name used by the “Chubb Group of Insurance Companies.” Id.,
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 6

5
¶ 4. Ms. Geiger has not called into question the accuracy of Mr. Peene’s declaration in
this regard. The Court therefore finds that Chubb, Chubb Group, and Great Northern
Insurance Group are not legal entities.
Because the Remaining Chubb Parties are not legal entities, Colorado law
controls whether they have the capacity to be sued pursuant to Rule 17(b)(3). Under
Colorado law, “[a]ctions may be brought only by legal entities and against legal entities.
There must be some ascertainable persons, natural or artificial, to whom judgments are
awarded and against whom they may be enforced.” Barker v. Dist. Ct. In & For Larimer
Cnty., 609 P.2d 628, 630 (Colo. 1980) (citation omitted). As the Remaining Chubb
Parties note, nowhere in Ms. Geiger’s attached exhibit, Docket No. 114-2, does Ms.
Geiger show that the Remaining Chubb Parties are legal entities. Docket No. 117 at 8.
The Court rejects Ms. Geiger’s argument that the Remaining Chubb Parties are
entities with the capacity to be sued under Rule 17(b) because “Defendants have
registered agents that accepted service on their behalf.” Docket No. 114 at 4, ¶ 8. Ms.
Geiger purports to have served the Remaining Chubb Parties through their registered
agents, Corporation Service Company and CT Corporation System. Docket No. 114 at
2-3, ¶ 2 (citing Docket Nos. 95-101). The Remaining Chubb Parties attach to their
motion to dismiss the declaration of Alicia DeBonis, Project Manager for Corporation
Service Company. Docket No. 104-3. Ms. DeBonis states that Corporation Service
Company “is not the registered agent in Colorado for any company called ‘Chubb’ or
‘Chubb Group.’” Id. at 2, ¶ 5. The Remaining Chubb Parties also attach the declaration
of Alexandre C. Halow, Representation Services Advisor for CT Corporation System.
Docket No. 104-2. Alexandre Halow states that CT Corporation System is not “the
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 5 of 6

6
registered agent in Colorado for any entities called ‘Chubb INA Holdings Inc.,’ ‘Chubb
Group Holdings Inc.,’ ‘Chubb,’ ‘Chubb Group,’ ‘Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a
Chubb,’ or ‘Chubb Limited.’” Id. at 2, ¶ 6. Ms. Geiger has not called into question the
truthfulness of either declaration. The Court finds that Corporation Service Company
and CT Corporation System are not the registered agents for the Remaining Chubb
Parties. As a result, Ms. Geiger’s argument that the Remaining Chubb Parties have
registered agents that accepted service on their behalf is incorrect.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Remaining Chubb Parties do not have the
capacity to be sued under Rule 17(b). The Court will dismiss Ms. Geiger’s claims
against the Remaining Chubb Parties with prejudice.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss “Chubb Group,” “Chubb,” and “Great Northern
Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb” [Docket No. 104] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff Dawn Geiger’s claims against Chubb Group, Chubb, and
Great Northern Insurance Group d/b/a Chubb are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is
further
ORDERED that this case is closed.
DATED March 14, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
___________________________
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge
____	__	___	__	__	______________ ______	__	__	_____ _________________	__	__	____________________________________________
Case No. 1:23-cv-01080-PAB-KAS Document 134 filed 03/14/25 USDC Colorado
pg 6 of 6