GENERAL30353 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PORTER v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUT. INS. CO. Colo. g$J cb.... tsisagti ast esa w of the topsoil were not foreseeable at the -.:~ _e 'cs time the scraping oceurred. The trial court Joan E PORTER, PlaintiN-Appellee, found otherwise, and iU finding of fact will v ColoJ.l. 9:TB. Sept 13, 1979. not be disturbed on review unless manifest AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL ly erroneous. Broneurue v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970). Under the INSURANCE COMPANY, circumstances of this we, it is possible to Defendant-Appellant conclude that a reasonably prudent person No. 79CA0151. would have anticipated that injury might Colorado Court of Appeals, result from the scraping of the topsoil. See Div. I. [5-7] Tina Marie argues further that the trial court erred in taking judicial no- tice of the wind velocity in Boulder. Trial courts may take judicial notice of faeU within the common knowledge of an inter- ested public. Four-County Metropolitan Capital Improvement District v. Board of County Commissioners, 149 Colo. 264, 369 P.2d 67 (1962). Climatological conditions are an appropriate subject for judicial no- tice. home Imurance Co. v. Denver R'est- ern BaseluJl Co., 82 Colo. 86, 257 P. 265 (1927). [8] Our review of the record does not support the defendant's argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's award of damages. There is testimony is the record regarding each item of the award, and the determination of the amount of the damages was, therefore, for the fact finder. Meiter v. Cavanaugh, 40 ColoApp. 454, 580 P2d 399 (1978). We have considered the defendant's re- maining argument and find it to be without merit Judgment affirmed. RULAND and BERMAN, JJ., concur. w u Stn suanrsm[a r ltuurer appealed from judgment of the Superior Court, City and County, Denver, Charln E. Bennett, J., awarding insured medical expenses under health and accident policy. The Court of Appeals, Coyte, J., held that where physician testified that in- sured had no aickneav at time of examina- tions and that he way unable to make any diagnosis or recommend any treatment at such time, and insured herself had no pain, discomfort, or awareness that she had any physical abnormality, there wns no sickness for purpose of polity provision excluding coverage for siclcnem first manifested prior to date person became an insured Affirmed. Insurance a=467.5 Where physician testified that patient had no sickness at time of examinations and that he was unable w make any diagnosis or recommend any treatment at such times, and patient herself had no pain, discomfort, or awareness that she had any physical abnormality, there was no "eirknem" for purpose of health and aciident policy provi- lion excluding coverage for aieknea+ first manifested prior to date patient became an insured, and thus insurer failed W prove that policy exclusion wea applicable. See pubOratlon Words and Phrase for other judidal coanroctiona and definitions. Bosworth & Slivka, P. C., Bruce G. Smith, Denver, for plaintiff-appellee. Littell, Everstine & Dickinson, Richard L Everstine, Denver, for defendant-appellant a'ii ,,i i~,.,i ~ i,:,~ ~~ iv., ~.'~i ~:~li d 1'i 1 ::! i.: ~ i i .:~ i i it i n! , . ...!' s i~ ~=I1i~ ~ .It'