delayed investigating her claim. Ms. Williams asserts that Owners should have begun its investigation in 2009 upon being informed of the probability of a UIM claim, not in 2012 when it received her demand for payment. To carry her burden to show that Owners acted unreasonably in violation of industry standards, Ms. Williams relies on excerpts from the deposition of her expert witness, Bradley Levin. Mr. Levin testified that Owners’ request for additional documentation to support the wage loss claim was not unreasonable, but Owners should have requested additional information from Ms. Williams about her wage loss claim in January, 2012. He did not say Owners should have made the request in 2009. See Sanderson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 251 P.3d 1213, 1220 (Colo.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Levin did not testify that his opinion
holding plaintiffs uim claims did not accrue until his lawsuit against the underinsured driver was resolved where insurance policy provided for uim coverage only after liability policies had been exhausted holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that because plaintiff released the tortfeasor plaintiff may not assert a claim against the uim carrier because of the derivative nature of the uim carriers liability holding that prospective buyer of used car could not recover under dealers uim endorsement because uim insurance is not for protection of vehicles but of persons holding that in order for insured to qualify for uim benefits there must have been a liability policy in effect um coverage does not satisfy this requirement