Mazur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

── Mazur v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1133 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court STEPHANIE MAZUR; JULIA WUNDER, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants - Appellants, v. No. 25-1133 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-02618-STV) STATE FARM MUTUAL (D. Colo.) AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant/Counterclaimant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before PHILLIPS, McHUGH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ This diversity case involves a dispute under Colorado law regarding uninsured motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants–Appellants Stephanie Mazur and Julia Wunder (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), were injured when Ms. Mazur, driving a vehicle owned by Ms. Wunder’s parents and insured by Defendant/Counterclaimant–Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), swerved to avoid * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.  Appellate Case: 25-1133 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 hitting a pedestrian in the left travel lane of the interstate at night, causing the vehicle to roll over several times. Plaintiffs later learned that the pedestrian, an elderly man named William Westuk, had been the passenger in an uninsured vehicle that had broken down on the other side of the interstate three hours before Plaintiffs’ accident occurred. The driver of the uninsured vehicle, Richard Fralick, had instructed Mr. Westuk to stay in the car while Mr. Fralick attempted to flag down another car for help. However, without Mr. Fralick’s knowledge and against his advice, Mr. Westuk left the vehicle and made his way across the median to seek help from drivers on the other side of the interstate, ending up in the travel lane of the interstate shortly before Plaintiffs encountered him in their vehicle. Plaintiffs sought insurance coverage from State Farm under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance policy. Plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to uninsured motorist coverage because their injuries stemmed from Mr. Fralick’s negligent maintenance and operation of his uninsured vehicle, which set into motion the chain of events triggering Plaintiffs’ rollover crash. State Farm denied coverage. Plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, holding that Plaintiffs were not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under Colorado law. We affirm. 2  Appellate Case: 25-1133 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 I. BACKGROUND 1 On April 13, 2021, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Mr. Fralick was driving his n