An overhead garage door struck Respondent Larry Crossgrove in the head while he made a delivery to a Wal-Mart store in Trinidad. Respondent required medical treatment for injuries suffered in the accident. His healthcare providers billed almost $250,000 for their services. Respondent's insurer however, paid the providers $40,000 in full satisfaction of the bills. Respondent subsequently filed suit against Wal-Mart. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellate court erred when it held that the trial court incorrectly admitted evidence of the amount paid by the insurer for Respondent's medical expenses as a result of Wal-Mart's negligence. Upon review, the Court held that the court of appeal correctly held that the trial court correctly held that the trial court should have excluded evidence of the amounts paid because of the common law evidentiary component of the collateral source doctrine required the exclusion. View "Wal-Mart v. Crossgrove" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed an unpublished appeallate court decision to determine whether: the court of appeals erred under Colorado's collateral source doctrine when it admitted evidence of the amounts paid by Respondent State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company for medical expenses that Petitioner Jack Sunahara incurred as a result of a car accident; and whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's ruling that portions of State Farm's claim file and information used by the company to generate reserves and settlement authority were not discoverable. The Court held that the appellate court erred in affirming the admission of evidence of the amounts paid for Petitioner's medical expenses because the pre-verdict evidentiary component of Colorado's collateral source rule prohibits the admission. The Court affirmed the appellate court in excluding portions of State Farm's claim file from admission. View "Sunahara v. State Farm" on Justia Law

Qwest Corporation and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) appealed a district court's judgment in favor of the Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC) that reversed the PUC's decision setting the maximum rate for certain telephone services. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the PUC regularly pursued its authority because it considered all of the statutorily-mandated factors and its decision is supported by substantial evidence. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Ofc. of Consumer Counsel v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law

This case arose from the negligence action Plaintiff Donald Smith filed against Defendant Michael Jeppsen after the parties were involved in a car accident. Plaintiff sought to recover, among other things, the cost of past and future medical expenses resulting from the crash. Defendant admitted liability, and the parties agreed that the proper measure of Plaintiff's medical expense damages should be the necessary and reasonable value of the medical services rendered. However the parties disagreed as to whether the trial court, in determining reasonable value, could consider evidence of the amounts billed to and paid by Plaintiff's insurance company (a collateral source). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court was correct in applying 10-1-135 C.R.S. (2011) in this case because the statute pertained to cases pending recovery as of August 11, 2010. Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court correctly excluded from evidence the amount of the insurance company's payments because section 10-1-135(10)(a) codifies the common law pre-verdict evidentiary component of the collateral source rule and unambiguously required the exclusion. View "In re Smith v. Jeppsen" on Justia Law

Respondent Colorado Public Utilities Commission challenged the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court of Routt County to consider changing the venue in regard to a petition for judicial review, arguing that Petitioner Associated Governments of Northwestern Colorado failed to meet the requirements of section 40-6-115(1) and (5), C.R.S. (2011). Holding that section 40-6-115(5) pertained to venue and not jurisdiction, the Routt County District Court allowed a transfer of the case to the District Court for the City and County of Denver. Upon review, the Court agreed with the district court, and held that section 40-6-115(5) mandated venue and did not limit jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court discharged the rule. On remand, the Routt County District Court may transfer this case to the Denver District Court. View "In re Associated Gov'ts of Nw. Colo. v. Colo. Pub. Utils." on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed a trial court's order that quashed service on Defendant Paulo Rodriguez-Cera. Defendant resided in Mexico but was served by substituted service in Colorado. After previously granting substituted service, the trial court determined that C.R.C.P. 4(d) mandated that service on a defendant located in a foreign country be made according to international agreement, if any. Because Mexico and the United States are parties to the Convention on Service Arboad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (20 U.S.T. 361), the trial court concluded that Plaintiff Rex Willhite must serve Defendant via the Convention. As a result, the trial court quashed the substituted service. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that C.R.C.P. 4(d) did not establish service according to international agreement as the exclusive means of serving a defendant in a foreign country. The Court held that substituted service under Colorado law provides a valid alternative to service abroad. The Court made the rule absolute and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Willhite v. Rodriguez-Cera" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jesse Reynolds and the owners of several other ditches that divert water from La Jara Creek appealed an order of the Water Court that denied their claim for declaratory relief. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that their appropriative rights to creek water were not limited to water flowing into the creek from the San Luis Valley Drain Ditch. Without directly addressing the merits of their claim, the water court granted summary judgment in favor of the State and Division Engineers (as well as other defendants) on the grounds that substantially the same issue had been litigated and decided against Plaintiffs in a prior declaratory action. The court concluded that all of the water rights of the parties in La Jara Creek were not only at issue, but were finally determined in that prior litigation, and therefore Plaintiffs’ claims were precluded. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Plaintiffs' claims had not been determined in the prior litigation (either expressly or by implication), and that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate. The Court reversed the water court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Reynolds v. Cotten" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 45, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 45 and its Titles stated a single subject: "public control of waters." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 45" on Justia Law

In an original proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the Ballot Title Setting Board's findings that proposed Initiative 2011-2012 No. 3, its title, and its ballot title and submission clause contained a single subject. Upon review, the Court held that the Title Board was correct: Initiative 3 and its Titles stated a single subject: "the public's rights in the waters of natural streams." The Court concluded this title complied with article V section 1(5.5) of the Colorado Constitution and section 1-40-106.5, C.R.S. (2011). View "In the Matter of the Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2011-2012 No. 3" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reviewed a district court order that upheld a county court's decision that a six-year stattue of limitations did not bar Respondent Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc.'s claim against Pettiioner Daniel Hassler. Petitioner financed the purchase of a vehicle by entering into a security agreement with Account Broker's predecessor-in-interest in which the vehicle served as collateral. Petitioner defaulted on the loan, and the predecessor repossessed the vehicle and later sold it at auction. The precedessor applied the proceeds of the auction to the balance of the loan. The proceeds were insufficient to cover the balance; thus Petitioner was still held responsible for the deficiency. The debt was eventually transferred to Account Brokers who sued Petitioner to recover the deficiency less than six years after the vehicle was sold. The county and district courts ruled in favor of Account Brokers, determining that the statute of limitations did not bar Account Brokers' claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the controlling issue was not the date that the debt was made liquidated or determinable but the date the debt accrued. "[U]nder Colorado law and the express terms of the parties' agreement, the present debt became due when it was accelerated following [the predecessor's] repossession of the vehicle and demand for full payment on the debt, which occurred more than six years before the initiation of the present suit. Accordingly, the action [was] barred by the statute of limitations." View "Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc." on Justia Law