Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reviewed an unpublished appeallate court decision to determine whether: the court of appeals erred under Colorado's collateral source doctrine when it admitted evidence of the amounts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

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

Petitioner Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation employed Respondent William Hoeper as a pilot. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) issued Respondent a firearm under the federal statute that authorizes the TSA to deputize pilots as law enforcement officers to defend the aircraft should the need arise. After discontinuing its use of the type of aircraft Respondent had piloted for many years, Air Wisconsin required Respondent to undertake training and pass a proficiency test for a new aircraft. Respondent failed three proficiency tests, knowing that if he failed a fourth test, he would be fired. During the last test, Respondent became angry with the test administrators because he believed they were deliberately sabotaging his testing. Test administrators reported Respondent's angry outbursts during testing to the TSA that Respondent was "a disgruntled employee (an FFDO [Federal Flight Deck Officer] who may be armed)" and was "concerned about the whereabouts of [Respondents] firearm." Respondent brought suit against Air Wisconsin in Colorado for defamation under Virginia law. Air Wisconsin argued it was immune from defamation suits as this under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), and unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment. The jury found clear and convincing evidence that statements made by the airline test administrator were defamatory. Air Wisconsin appealed and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals determined that the question of whether the judge or jury decided immunity under the ATSA was a procedural issue determined by Colorado law, and concluded that the trial court properly allowed the jury to decide the immunity question. Air Wisconsin appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, adding that the airline was not immune from suit or defamation under the ATSA. Furthermore, the Court held that the record supported the jury's finding of clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. View "Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the court of appeals' determination that Thomas Banner's assignment of his voting rights and right to receive distributions to Plaintiff Elizabeth Condo was ineffective because it violated an anti-assignment clause in the "Hut at Avon, LLC’s" (Hut Group) operating agreement. Plaintiff brought a tort action against the other members of the Hut Group, Thomas Conners and George Roberts, and the attorney who allegedly assisted them in purchasing Banner's membership interest in the Hut Group. She claimed that Defendants' purchase of Banner's membership interest tortiously interfered with his prior assignment to her and that that interference amounted to civil conspiracy because it was intended to destroy the value of her assignment. The Supreme Court held that the attempted assignment of the member's right to receive distributions and effective transfer of voting rights was invalid because it was made without the consent of the other members of the LLC, in violation of the anti-assignment clause in the operating agreement. Furthermore, because the Colorado LLC statute evinced a preference for the freedom of contract, the Court held that the anti-assignment clause at issue here rendered each LLC member powerless to make an assignment without the consent of all members and therefore was without any legal effect. View "Condo v. Conners" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a claim under Colorado law for civil theft of a copyrightable work required a trial court to instruct the jury on principles of federal copyright law. Petitioner Steward Software hired Respondent Richard Kopcho to develop and market a new software program. Steward never entered into a written agreement governing the ownership of the software with Holonyx, Inc. (one of Respondent's multiple corporate entities) or Respondent. By the time the software was ready for testing, the relationship between the parties had become strained. Steward refused to make further payments and under Respondent's direction, Holonyx locked Steward out of the software code and refused to turn it over. Holonyx then filed a copyright registration for the software with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the software's author a new corporation Respondent controlled called Ruffdogs Software, Inc. Steward sued Respondent for breach of contract and civil theft. Before trial, the parties tendered proposed jury instructions; one of Steward's proposed instructions pertained to the ownership and registration of copyrightable works. The trial court determined that copyright law did not pertain to Steward's civil theft claim and rejected the tendered instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the copyright in the code was irrelevant. The Court thus concluded the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on the principles of copyright law. The court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's opinion. View "Steward Software Co. v. Kopcho" on Justia Law

Petitioner Monica Vickery sought review of the court of appeals' judgment that affirmed a district court's reduction of exemplary damages in her defamation suit against the mother and sister of her deceased husband in "Vickery v. Vickery," (2010 WL 963204 (Colo. App. March 18, 2010)). Both the district court and court of appeals understood section 13-21-102 C.R.S. (2011) to limit Petitioner's exemplary damages to an amount equal to the compensatory damages figure returned by the jury, before any adjustment for prejudgment interest. But the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, disagreeing with its interpretation of section 13-21-102. The Supreme Court found that "the amount of the actual damages awarded," to which "reasonable exemplary damages" are statutorily limited, refers not to the jury's assessment of total compensatory damages but to the compensatory damages awarded against the defendant as the direct result of that assessment, which necessarily includes statutorily mandated prejudgment interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Vickery v. Evans" on Justia Law

This case arose from a pending medical malpractice case from the Denver district court. Plaintiff Ernest Ortega sued Defendants Dr. David Lieuwen and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado (Kaiser) alleging negligent medical treatment given to him in 2007. Plaintiff appealed the district court's denial of his request for a protective order to cover his electronic medical records encompassing a ten-year period preceding the incident underlying this case. The trial court determined that Plaintiff's electronic medical records were not protected by the physician-patient privilege and that the records were relevant to prepare a defense. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that Plaintiff's medical records were not protected as privileged and that Defendants could use unredacted copies of all of Plaintiff's medical records. View "Ortega v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado" on Justia Law

At issue before the Supreme Court was whether a trial court's order that granted Defendant Wal-Mart Stores a new trial based on a purportedly untimely disclosure and a jury verdict that allegedly was not supported by the evidence and instead was the result of prejudice. In 2007 Petitioner Holly Averyt, a commercial truck driver, slipped in grease while making a delivery to a Wal-Mart Store in Greeley. As a result of her fall, Petitioner's injuries ended her career as a truck driver and left her unable to perform many daily functions. Petitioner sued Wal-Mart, alleging claims of negligence and premises liability. During discovery, Petitioner unsuccessfully sought to obtain records from Wal-Mart documenting the grease spill. Despite Wal-Mart's persistent denial of the grease spill, Petitioner's attorney continued to seek evidence to verify its existence. While Wal-Mart was making its opening statement and claiming that there had been no grease spill, Petitioner's attorney received an email on his mobile telephone containing a memorandum referencing a grease spill and a related investigation and cleanup at a different Greeley Wal-Mart. During a recess at trial, Wal-Mart's attorney asked Petitioner's attorney whether he had been reading from a document when he questioned a witness. Petitioner's attorney then gave Wal-Mart's attorney a copy of the report. After this exchange, and before Wal-Mart began cross-examining the witness, Wal-Mart objected outside the presence of the jury to Petitioner's use of the report during direct examination. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the jury's award was supported by substantial evidence, and was not the result of prejudice, finding that the report in question was one available to both parties. The Court refused to reverse the jury's award and grant a new trial. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's order. View "In re Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

Consumers brought a class action against ten automobile dealerships operating under the "Medved" name and their owner John Medved, alleging violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA). Plaintiffs alleged that Medved's sales documents failed to disclose the price and existence of various dealer-added aftermarket products, injuring Plaintiffs who paid for those products. Plaintiffs sought certification of two classes: one which included customers who paid for the add-ons but that were never installed, and another class for those who paid for the add-ons but who were unaware of them due to Medved's sales documents. The trial court determined that Plaintiffs could prove causation and injury in their CCPA claims with circumstantial evidence. However, the trial court did not consider whether the individual evidence presented by Medved rebutted the class-wide inferences of causation and injury which was crucial to certification of both classes. The appellate court concluded that the trial court erred by not rigorously analyzing the evidence presented by Medved to refute Plaintiffs' theories of liability. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further analysis to determine "to its satisfaction whether Plaintiffs could establish causation and injury. View "Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court in this case pertained to the standards a trial court applies when it decides whether to certify a class pursuant to C.R.C.P. 23. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' rulings: that the trial court must apply a "preponderance of the evidence" standard to C.R.C.P. 23's requirements, that the trial court must resolve factual or legal disputes dispositive of class certification regardless of any overlap with the merits, and that the trial court must resolve expert disputes regardless of any overlap with the merits. The Court also concluded that the trial court rigorously analyzed the evidence in determining that Plaintiffs in this case established an identifiable class and satisfied C.R.C.P. 23(b)(3)'s "predominance" requirement. View "Jackson v. Unocal Corp" on Justia Law