Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Stresscon Corporation, a subcontracting concrete company, filed suit against Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, alleging, among other things, that Travelers acted in bad faith, unreasonably delaying or denying its claim for covered insurance benefits; and Stresscon sought awards of two times the covered benefits along with fees and costs, as prescribed by statute. Stresscon’s claims for relief arose from a 2007 serious construction accident which was caused by a crane operator employed by a company that was itself a subcontractor of Stresscon. Stresscon’s general contractor, Mortenson, sought damages from Stresscon, asserting Stresson’s contractual liability for the resulting construction delays, and Stresscon in turn sought indemnification from Travelers. Travelers petitioned for review of the court of appeals’ judgment affirming the district court’s denial of its motion for directed verdict in a lawsuit brought by its insured, Stresscon. Much as the district court had done, the appellate court rejected Travelers’ contention that the no-voluntary-payments clause of their insurance contract relieved it of any obligation to indemnify Stresscon for payments Stresscon had made without its consent. Instead, the court of appeals found that the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion in "Friedland v. Travelers Indemnity Co.," (105 P.3d 639 (2005)) had effectively overruled the Court's prior “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence to the contrary and given Stresscon a similar opportunity. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that its adoption of a notice-prejudice rule in "Friedland" did not overrule any existing “no voluntary payments” jurisprudence. The Court declined to extend a notice-prejudice reasoning to Stresscon’s voluntary payments, made in the face of the no-voluntary-payments clause of its insurance contract with Travelers. View "Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. v. Stresscon Co." on Justia Law

Allstate Insurance Company petitioned for review of a court of appeals' judgment that reversed the dismissal of a breach of assignment claim brought by Medical Lien Management (MLM). The district court effectively construed MLM's Lien and Security Agreement with a motor vehicle accident victim (upon which the underlying complaint was premised), as failing to assign the victim's right to the proceeds of his personal injury lawsuit against Allstate's insured. The court of appeals found a valid assignment to MLM all rights to the future proceeds from the personal injury claim in an amount equal to the costs of medical services paid for by MLM, as well as a sufficient allegation in the complaint of an enforceable obligation by Allstate to pay the assigned sums to MLM. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the court of appeals erred in finding the purported assignment in this case. View "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Medical Lien Management, Inc." on Justia Law

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question of Colorado law to the Colorado Supreme Court. An insurer issued a policy that provided directors and officers of a company liability coverage. The policy required the insured to give prompt notice of a claim, specifically, notice "as soon as practicable" after learning of the claim. The policy also required the insured to give notice of the claim by a date certain (not later than 60 days after the expiration of the policy). Near the end of the one-year policy, a company officer was sued for alleged misrepresentations he made during a merger. Unaware of the insurance policy, the officer defended himself against the suit. When he learned of the policy, approximately sixteen months after the policy had expired, he contacted the insurer. The underlying suit was settled. The officer then sued the insurer for denying coverage under the policy. The insurer removed the case to the federal district court, and then moved to dismiss on grounds that the officer's claim was untimely. The issue of Colorado law before the Tenth Circuit centered on the "notice-prejudice" rule to claims-made insurance policies: (1) whether the notice-prejudice rule applied to claims-made liability policies in general; and (2) if so, whether the rule applied to both types of notice requirements in those policies. The Colorado Court answered the certified questions more narrowly than originally presented because the parties agreed that the prompt notice requirement of the claims-made policy in this case was not at issue. The Colorado Court's analysis was restricted to the date-certain notice requirement. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule did not apply to date-certain notice requirement in a claims-made insurance policy. In a claims-made policy, the date-certain notice defines the scope of coverage ("to excuse late notice in violation of such a requirement would rewrite a fundamental term of the insurance contract.") The Court reframed the certified questions as a single question: whether the notice-prejudice rule applies to the date-certain notice requirement of claims-made policies, to which the Colorado Court answered in the negative. View "Craft v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In consolidated cases for this opinion, plaintiffs filed separate actions against Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) in district court. In each case, Farmers moved the change venue, alleging that a change would promote "the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice." Farmers supported it motions with attorney affidavits that purported to demonstrate (based on Google Maps printouts) that the transferee court was more convenient for plaintiffs and their medical providers. The trial court granted the motions for transfer in all three cases. Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling, arguing that judges within the same district applied C.R.C.P. 98(f)(2) inconsistently, and that venue should have been transferred back to the initial district court. Recognizing a need to promote a uniform application of the venue rules, the Supreme Court issues rules to show cause. The Court held that the trial courts abused their discretion when they changed venue in all three cases. Consequently, the transferee courts were directed to return the cases to the original district court. View "In re Hagan v. Farmers Insurance Exchange" on Justia Law

The Colorado Division of Insurance initiated an investigation into Milton Trujillo's application to renew as a insurance producer license with bail bond authority. It later denied the application based on a complaint it received. The Division charged Trujillo with twelve counts of violating the insurance code, professions and occupations code, and Division regulations. The ALJ revoked the license; the Commissioner of Insurance adopted the ALJ's decision. The court of appeals affirmed the Commissioner's action, determining that Trujillo violated a fiduciary duty prescribed by 10-2-704(a). The Supreme Court reversed, finding that the court of appeals erred in applying section 10-2-704(1)(a) to this case: "[w]hile there are unappealed findings of fact upon which the Commissioner on remand could uphold the sanction it ordered, it is not clear [to the Court] whether, absent the agency's construction of 10-2-704(1)(a), the Commissioner would have exercised his authority to revoke Trujillo's license and deny his renewal application." The case was therefore remanded for redetermination by the Commissioner the appropriate sanction for Trujillo's conduct. View "Trujillo v. Colorado Division of Insurance" on Justia Law

Respondent Helen Rodriguez injured herself after falling down a flight of stairs at work. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether an "unexplained" fall satisfied the "arising out of" employment requirement of the Workers' Compensation Act. The Court agreed with the appellate court that respondent's unexplained fall was compensable, but it disagreed with the reasoning. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court erred when it agreed with respondent's view that her injuries arose out of employment, and held that an unexplained fall necessarily stemmed from a "neutral" risk attributable to neither the employment nor the employee. "Under our longstanding 'but-for' test, such an unexplained fall 'arises out of' employment if the fall would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of employment placed the employee in a position where he or she was injured." View "City of Brighton v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. appealed the appellate court's decision to reverse an Industrial Claim Appeals Office decision disallowing respondent Elaine Loofbourrow's award of temporary disability benefits. The ICAO concluded that once respondent's treating physician placed her at maximum medical improvement, temporary total disability benefits could not be awarded for the injury for which she was initially treated. The appellate court concluded that under the circumstances of this case, such an independent medical exam was not a prerequisite to temporary total disability benefits. After its review of this case, the Supreme Court concluded the appellate court was correct in its decision: because a determination of maximum medical improvement has no statutory significance with regard to injuries resulting in loss of no more than three days (or shifts) of work time, respondent's award of temporary total disability benefits was not barred by her failure to first seek a division-sponsored independent medical examination. View "Harman-Bergstedt, Inc. v. Loofbourrow" on Justia Law

Steven Pham represented the estate of a driver of a car involved in a traffic accident. He appealed (along with the driver's parents and the five passengers in the car at the time of the accident) the court of appeals' judgment which affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, State Farm, on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were bound by the statute of limitations governing underinsured motorist claims. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that plaintiffs failed to file their action or demand arbitration of their underinsured motorist claims within either three years of the accrual of their cause or within two years after receiving payment of a settlement or judgment on an underlying bodily injury liability claim preserved as prescribed by the applicable statute. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision. View "Pham v. State Farm Auto Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Respondents Christopher Roinestad and Gerald Fitz-Gerald were overcome by poisonous gases while cleaning a grease clog in a sewer near the Hog's Breath Saloon & Restaurant. The district court concluded that Hog's Breath caused respondents' injuries by dumping substantial amounts of cooking grease into the sewer thereby creating the clog and consequent build up of the gas. On summary judgment, the district court found the saloon liable under theories of negligence and off-premises liability and granted respondents damages. The saloon carried a commercial general liability policy issued by Petitioner Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company which sought a ruling it had no duty to indemnify Hog's Breath. The district court agreed that under the terms of the policy, the insurer had no duty under a pollution exclusion clause. The appellate court reversed the ruling in favor of the insurer, finding the pollution exclusion clause was ambiguous and that its application to cooking grease (a common waste product) could lead to absurd results and negate essential coverage. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the saloon released enough grease to amount to a discharge of a pollutant, and that the insurance policy pollution exclusion clause barred coverage in this case. View "Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company v. Roinestad" on Justia Law

Respondent Robert Lego admitted his wife to Porter Hospital's emergency room. She stayed there for approximately two months. The Legos' insurance provider notified Respondent in writing that it would stop covering Mrs. Lego's hospital care after six weeks. Respondent disputed the insurer's position and refused to discharge his wife from the hospital after six weeks. The hospital followed the insurer in notifying Respondent the insurance coverage for Mrs. Lego would end, and that the Legos would be responsible for any uncovered charges. In an effort to recoup those charges Respondent refused to pay, the hospital sued on the grounds of unjust enrichment with recovery in quantum meruit. Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing that the action was barred by a general statute of limitations codified in section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) C.R.S. (2011). The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred in determining the amount the insurance company did not pay was liquidated or determinable damages within the meaning of the statute. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, interpreting section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) C.R.S. (2011) to mean its six-year limitations period applied in this case, particularly when the amount owed was ascertainable either by reference to the agreement, or by simple computation using extrinsic evidence. View "Portercare Adventist Health System v. Lego" on Justia Law