Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Mountjoy, Jrgreen2 sentences2017Stoesz , ¶ 10, — P.3d at -. 2017Stoesz , ¶ 10, — P.3d at -. | 1 | 1 |
Newland v. Hollandgreen1 sentence2012That refusal occurred after August 5, 2008, and it alone would be sufficient to establish liability under the Statutes if the jury credited the testimony given in plaintiff's case-in-chief. 1381 A plaintiff is not required to elect between consistent remedies, see Newland v. Holland, 624 P.2d 933, 935 (Colo.App.1981), and need not assert every fact that may be in his favor when any one of several claims is sufficient to prevail. | 1 | 1 |
Weitzman v. Blazing Pedals, Inc.green1 sentence2012In a first-party claim, "the insured 'is asking for payment under the terms of the insurance contract between him and the insurance company, and the insurance company owes [the insured] a duty to adjust his claim in good faith.'" Id. (quoting Weitzman v. Blazing Pedals, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 125, 126 (D.Colo.1998)). 137 The majority holds that a first-party UIM claim is distinguishable from a first-party bad faith claim. | 1 | 1 |
Bloom v. Wolfegreen2 sentences2007While an insurance policy is a contract, see Bloom v. Wolfe, 37 Colo.App. 407, 411 , 547 P.2d 934, 938 (1976), a claim for UIM benefits may be premised upon a tort claim for bodily injury. 2007While an insurance policy is a contract, see Bloom v. Wolfe, 37 Colo.App. 407, 411 , 547 P.2d 934, 938 (1976), a claim for UIM benefits may be premised upon a tort claim for bodily injury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichael
green
2 sentences2024Aetna argued that McMichael's UM/UIM claim was precluded by an exclusion in the policy for "[a]ny obligation for which the 'insured' or the 'insured's' insurer may be held liable under any workers' compensation . . . law." Id. at 99-100 . 2024We rejected Aetna's claim, explaining that the WCA "does not bar McMichael from bringing a tort action against the driver who caused the accident," id. at 100 n.7 (citing § 8-41-203), and that the UM/UIM benefits 21 McMichael sought through his suit against Aetna "substitute for benefits that [he] would have received from the motorist who caused his injuries," id. at 100. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Marez v. Dairyland Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 291 . ¶20 We next considered whether to abandon the traditional approach in Clementi , a case involving an insured’s late notice of a UIM claim. 2024Id. at 291 . ¶20 We next considered whether to abandon the traditional approach in Clementi , a case involving an insured’s late notice of a UIM claim. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2016Therefore, section 10-4-609(1) barred the setoff of MedPay 2 payments from Calderon’s UM/UIM claim. 2 1 The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 2 East 14th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80203 3 2016 CO 72 4 Supreme Court Case No. 14SC494 5 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals 6 Court of Appeals Case No. 13CA1185 7 Petitioner: 8 Arnold A. Calderon, 9 v. 0 Respondent: 1 American Family Mutual Insurance Company. 2 Judgment Reversed 3 en banc 4 November 7, 2016 5 Attorneys for Petitioner: 6 Franklin D. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hill v. DeWitt
green
1 sentence2012The trial court here acknowledged as much by denying plaintiff's motion seeking to add a common law bad faith claim because the two actions involved "different standards." Denial of that motion also underscores the fact that common law bad faith is not at issue in this appeal. 136 Although plaintiffs UIM claim was filed and processed in part before the Statutes took effect, it does not necessarily follow that defendant was held retroactively liable for "transactions or considerations already past," DeWitt, 54 P.3d at 854 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Tayler v. Travelers Insurance
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 70-71 . 2012In a first-party claim, "the insured 'is asking for payment under the terms of the insurance contract between him and the insurance company, and the insurance company owes [the insured] a duty to adjust his claim in good faith.'" Id. (quoting Weitzman v. Blazing Pedals, Inc., 151 F.R.D. 125, 126 (D.Colo.1998)). 137 The majority holds that a first-party UIM claim is distinguishable from a first-party bad faith claim. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
USAA v. Parker
green
2 sentences2011However, Levy's reliance upon section 18-21-101 and USAA v. Parker, 200 P.3d 350 (Colo.2009), is misplaced. 2011While prejudgment interest on a UM/UIM claim should be calculated at nine per cent per annum, see Parker, 200 P.3d at 358-59 , the determination of whether prejudgment interest should be added to an award of damages in an arbitration is for the arbiters to decide. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Clementi
neutral
2 sentences2001Id. at 196 . 2001Id. at 196 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Eckart v. INDUS. CLAIMS APPEALS OFFICE
green
2 sentences2001Rodriguez v. Healthone, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2000)(medical malpractice claim)(cert. granted June 4, 2001); Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989)(unemployment compensation claim). *752 Here, the trial court concluded that the proximate cause of Brown's injury was that the UIM claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations. 2001Rodriguez v. Healthone, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2000)(medical malpractice claim)(cert. granted June 4, 2001); Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989)(unemployment compensation claim). *752 Here, the trial court concluded that the proximate cause of Brown's injury was that the UIM claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Healthone
green
2 sentences2001Rodriguez v. Healthone, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2000)(medical malpractice claim)(cert. granted June 4, 2001); Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989)(unemployment compensation claim). *752 Here, the trial court concluded that the proximate cause of Brown's injury was that the UIM claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations. 2001Rodriguez v. Healthone, 24 P.3d 9 (Colo.App.2000)(medical malpractice claim)(cert. granted June 4, 2001); Eckart v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 775 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1989)(unemployment compensation claim). *752 Here, the trial court concluded that the proximate cause of Brown's injury was that the UIM claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.