subrogation claim in Colorado

2016See id. ¶38 Ten years later, in Kral v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co., 784 P.2d 759 , 760–61 (Colo. 1989), an insured party challenged the enforceability of (1) a subrogation clause that required the insured to reimburse the insurer in the event that the insured recovered funds from “another party” and (2) a release-trust agreement in which the insured agreed to hold fifteen percent of any monies received in her tort action in trust for the insurer.

1998In Kral, we held that a subrogation clause contained in an insurance policy and a release-trust agreement executed pursuant to the subrogation provision were enforceable only to the extent that they did not impair the ability of the insured to gain full compensation for any loss caused by the conduct of an uninsured motorist.' See Kral, 784 P.2d at 765-66 .

2007Davis, 817 P.2d at 526 .

1996For example, in County Workers Compensation Pool v. Davis, supra, the supreme court held that if an injured employee’s tort claim against a third party is settled for an amount greater than the insurer’s subrogation claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and the insurer has not actively participated in the tort litigation, the insurer may be ordered to pay a reasonable share of the attorney fees and court costs incurred by the employee in the tort litigation.

2021Ferrellgas, Inc. v. Yeiser , 247 P.3d 1022, 1027 ( Colo. 2011 ) ( " [Insurer's] subrogation interest ... effectively allowed it to stand in [the insured's] shoes with respect to that amount, and [the settlement of insurer's] subrogation interest was thereby an effective settlement with [the insured] of her interest in the [covered] amount." ) .

2021Id. ¶49 Thereafter, Yeiser sued Ferrellgas for breach of contract, and a jury returned a verdict of approximately $314,000.

2016Deference to Agency Advisory Opinion ¶ 27 Ybarra further contends that we should, and the district court failed to, defer to the advisory opinion of the Colorado Collection Agency Board (Board) which concludes that “insurance subrogation claims are ‘debt’ within the meaning of [the CFDCPA].” 2 We do not exclude the possibility that under different circumstances than those presented here, a subrogation claim could constitute a “debt” under the CFDCPA. 12 ¶ 28 “[W]e must give deference to the reasonable interpretations of the administrative agencies that are authorized to administer and enforce

2016See id. ¶38 Ten years later, in Kral v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co., 784 P.2d 759 , 760–61 (Colo. 1989), an insured party challenged the enforceability of (1) a subrogation clause that required the insured to reimburse the insurer in the event that the insured recovered funds from “another party” and (2) a release-trust agreement in which the insured agreed to hold fifteen percent of any monies received in her tort action in trust for the insurer.

2016Dubois v. Abrahamson, 214 P.3d 586, 588 (Colo. App. 2009).2 D.

2016Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe, Inc., 63 P.3d 353, 360 (Colo. 2003) (“[I]f the legislature disapproves of our interpretation, it has the power to amend the statute to make its intention clear.”).

2012See Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119, 132 (Colo.2005) ("Interest, in the common acceptance of the term, 'is the compensation allowed by law, or fixed by the parties, for the use, detention, or forbearance of money or its equivalent.'" (quoting in part Stone v. Currigan, 138 Colo. 442, 445 , 334 P.2d 740, 741 (1959))). 120 Further, although the subrogation claim extends to the "amount of the recovery . actually collected," the statute also precludes the workers' compensation provider from recovering "any sum in excess of the amount of compensation for which" it

2012See Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119, 132 (Colo.2005) ("Interest, in the common acceptance of the term, 'is the compensation allowed by law, or fixed by the parties, for the use, detention, or forbearance of money or its equivalent.'" (quoting in part Stone v. Currigan, 138 Colo. 442, 445 , 334 P.2d 740, 741 (1959))). 120 Further, although the subrogation claim extends to the "amount of the recovery . actually collected," the statute also precludes the workers' compensation provider from recovering "any sum in excess of the amount of compensation for which" it

2012See Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119, 132 (Colo.2005) ("Interest, in the common acceptance of the term, 'is the compensation allowed by law, or fixed by the parties, for the use, detention, or forbearance of money or its equivalent.'" (quoting in part Stone v. Currigan, 138 Colo. 442, 445 , 334 P.2d 740, 741 (1959))). 120 Further, although the subrogation claim extends to the "amount of the recovery . actually collected," the statute also precludes the workers' compensation provider from recovering "any sum in excess of the amount of compensation for which" it

2012Gardenswartz, 242 P.3d at 1092 (Rice, J., dissenting).

2012Gardenswartz, 242 P.3d at 1092 (Rice, J., dissenting).

2009Richards v. Suckle, 871 S.W.2d 239, 242 (Tex.App.1994) (holding that because the investor taking assignment of the mortgage was found to have notice of the subrogation claim, subrogation was appropriate).

1988See Employers Casualty Co. v. Wainwright, 28 Colo.App. 292 , 473 P.2d 181 (1970).

1988See Employers Casualty Co. v. Wainwright, 28 Colo.App. 292 , 473 P.2d 181 (1970).