CO Supreme Court: Insurance Discovery in Car Accident Cases

Case asks Colorado’s highest court to clarify what evidence injured policyholders may obtain when challenging an insurance company’s post-lawsuit claim handling

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, UNITED STATES, September 8, 2026 /EINPresswire.com/ — Malnar Injury Law is helping take an important fight for injured car-accident victims to the Colorado Supreme Court.

The Colorado Springs personal-injury firm, together with co-counsel, represents James Berns in Berns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Colorado Supreme Court Case No. 26SA86 1:24-cv-01971-GPG-NRN Berns v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The case asks Colorado’s highest court to resolve a recurring legal question that could affect injured drivers and insurance bad-faith litigation throughout the state.

When car-accident victims purchase uninsured- and underinsured-motorist coverage, they purchase protection for circumstances in which the driver who injured them does not have enough insurance to cover their losses.

But when an injured policyholder and the insurance company disagree about the value or handling of a claim, litigation may become necessary.

The question now before the Colorado Supreme Court concerns what happens after that lawsuit is filed: whether an insurance company may broadly shield subsequent claim notes, evaluations and other post-litigation claim materials from discovery, or whether relevant, nonprivileged evidence concerning continued claim handling remains subject to ordinary discovery principles.

“Our position is that filing a lawsuit should not automatically close the curtains on how an insurance company continues to evaluate its policyholder’s claim,” said Ryan Malnar, founder of Malnar Injury Law. “When an injured person has to go to court to enforce his rights, the lawsuit itself should not become a blanket that hides otherwise relevant evidence.”

THE CASE BEHIND THE QUESTION
The underlying case arose after Berns was rear-ended in March 2020.

The at-fault driver’s insurer later offered its $25,000 policy limit. Berns then sought underinsured-motorist benefits from State Farm under his own automobile policy, which provided up to $250,000 in UM/UIM coverage.

State Farm questioned whether the injuries and medical treatment claimed by Berns were caused by the collision and ultimately maintained that his claim did not exceed the insurance available from the at-fault driver.

Berns and his attorneys continued providing medical information and requesting reevaluation of the claim. Berns ultimately filed suit in 2024, asserting claims that include underinsured-motorist benefits, common-law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial under Colorado law.

State Farm disputes those claims. No determination of liability has been made, and the underlying case remains pending.

During the litigation, another dispute developed: whether Berns could obtain portions of State Farm’s claim file and claim evaluations created after the lawsuit was filed.

State Farm has relied on what courts have called the “suspension rule”—a line of authority providing, under certain circumstances, that an insurer’s obligation to negotiate, settle or pay a disputed claim may be suspended after litigation begins.

Berns argues that an insurer nevertheless continues to owe its policyholder a duty of good faith and that relevant, nonprivileged post-litigation claim materials should not receive categorical protection merely because a lawsuit has been filed.

“The important distinction is between legitimate privilege and a blanket shield from discovery,” Malnar said. “We are not arguing that privileged attorney-client communications should be produced. We are arguing that the filing of a lawsuit should not automatically make otherwise relevant claim-handling evidence off limits.”

A QUESTION COLORADO COURTS HAVE STRUGGLED TO ANSWER
The issue reached the Colorado Supreme Court after U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter concluded that federal judges applying Colorado law had reached differing conclusions about the relationship between the so-called suspension rule and an insurer’s continuing duty of good faith.

The federal court noted that the issue arises repeatedly in insurance litigation and that no controlling Colorado Supreme Court precedent resolves the discovery question.

The court therefore certified this question to the Colorado Supreme Court:

In an insurance bad faith case, there appear to be two competing principles: the “suspension rule” and the rule that an insurer owes a continuing duty of good faith to its insured that continues after the filing of a lawsuit. In the face of these two principles, when and to what extent is discovery allowed into an insurer’s post-litigation claim notes or claim file, and its post-litigation evaluation of the claim?

The Colorado Supreme Court accepted the certified question in March 2026.

SUPPORT FROM POLICYHOLDER AND TRIAL-LAWYER ORGANIZATIONS
The case has also drawn the attention of United Policyholders and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association.

The organizations filed an amicus brief supporting Berns’ position and urging the Colorado Supreme Court to reject a categorical rule that would shield post-litigation claim materials from discovery. They argue that such materials should instead be analyzed under ordinary principles governing relevance and privilege.

Although the dispute arose from one injured driver’s insurance claim, the Supreme Court’s answer could provide statewide guidance about what evidence may be obtained in insurance bad-faith litigation after a lawsuit begins.

“For injured policyholders and the lawyers who represent them, this is not an abstract procedural issue,” Malnar said. “Evidence showing how an insurance company evaluated a claim can be important to determining whether the company handled that claim appropriately. Colorado lawyers and courts need a clear rule explaining when that evidence is discoverable.”

TAKING AN INJURY CASE BEYOND THE SETTLEMENT TABLE
For Malnar Injury Law, the case reflects a willingness to pursue difficult insurance issues beyond the ordinary settlement process when doing so is necessary to advance a client’s position.

Most personal injury lawyers claim never present a legal issue that reaches a state supreme court. Berns has moved from an individual underinsured-motorist dispute to a question the federal court determined warranted guidance from Colorado’s highest court.

Malnar Injury Law has built its practice around representing people as car accident lawyers in Colorado Springs , preparing cases for litigation and confronting disputed insurance claims when the firm believes further advocacy is warranted.

The firm has been recognized as a Best of the Springs winner five times 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026

Ryan Malnar
Malnar Injury Law – Stubborn Attorney
+1 719-321-6914
email us here
Visit us on social media:
Instagram
Facebook
YouTube
TikTok

Media gallery