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.
9 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hutchinson v. Eldergreen2 sentences1979See Hutchison v. Elder, 140 Colo. 379 , 344 P.2d 1090 (1959). 1979See Hutchison v. Elder, 140 Colo. 379 , 344 P.2d 1090 (1959). | 4 | 4 |
Travelers Cas. and Sur. v. Century Sur.green2 sentences2011Excess clauses have been analogized to escape clauses, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Century Surety Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 1156 , 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 529 (2004), and both types of clauses essentially describe different sides of the same coin: through an excess clause an insurer initially accepts liability but then tries to shift it to another insurer, while through an escape clause an insurer initially disclaims liability but then accepts it in the absence of other insurance. 2011Excess clauses have been analogized to escape clauses, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Century Surety Co., 118 Cal.App.4th 1156 , 13 Cal.Rptr.3d 526, 529 (2004), and both types of clauses essentially describe different sides of the same coin: through an excess clause an insurer initially accepts liability but then tries to shift it to another insurer, while through an escape clause an insurer initially disclaims liability but then accepts it in the absence of other insurance. | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. United Services Automobile Ass'ngreen2 sentences2011Ass'n, 211 Va. 133 , 176 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1970) (holding that an excess clause does not affect coverage and simply allows for determining the distribution of liability). 2011Ass'n, 211 Va. 133 , 176 S.E.2d 327, 331 (1970) (holding that an excess clause does not affect coverage and simply allows for determining the distribution of liability). | 1 | 1 |
Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co.green1 sentence2009Co., 937 P.2d 802, 805 (Colo.App.1996) ("[TJhe General Assembly has chosen not to address the primacy of liability coverage as it has that of PIP coverage ... we are hesitant to conclude that the excess clause in the Avis rental agreement is void as against any legislatively declared public policy. | 1 | 1 |
Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.green1 sentence1978See Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 28 N.J. 554 , 147 A.2d 525 (1959); but see Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 107 Ariz. 227 , 485 P.2d 552 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc.green1 sentence1997But see United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 842 P.2d 208 (Colo.1992)(Kirshbaum, J., specially concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences1978See Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 28 N.J. 554 , 147 A.2d 525 (1959); but see Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 107 Ariz. 227 , 485 P.2d 552 (1971). 1978See Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 28 N.J. 554 , 147 A.2d 525 (1959); but see Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 107 Ariz. 227 , 485 P.2d 552 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Woodward
green
2 sentences1979Furthermore, replacing condition ‘6’ of the rental section with an excess insurance clause is curious at best, since condition ‘6’ deals with ‘benefit to bailees.’ Looking for help in that section of the policy dealing with ‘owner’ coverage, see Smith v. Woodward, 51 Colo. 311 , 117 P. 140 (1911), we note that the provisions for ‘other insurance’ there fall under the heading: ‘VI Additional Conditions.’ In light of this, it is clear to us that, by the words ‘conditions 6 of the policy,’ the plaintiff and G & J Specialties meant to indicate the Roman Numeral ‘VI,’ and to apply the excess clause 1979Furthermore, replacing condition ‘6’ of the rental section with an excess insurance clause is curious at best, since condition ‘6’ deals with ‘benefit to bailees.’ Looking for help in that section of the policy dealing with ‘owner’ coverage, see Smith v. Woodward, 51 Colo. 311 , 117 P. 140 (1911), we note that the provisions for ‘other insurance’ there fall under the heading: ‘VI Additional Conditions.’ In light of this, it is clear to us that, by the words ‘conditions 6 of the policy,’ the plaintiff and G & J Specialties meant to indicate the Roman Numeral ‘VI,’ and to apply the excess clause | 4 | 1978–1979 |
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc.
green
1 sentence2009Such an argument is better addressed to the General Assembly."), aff'd, 947 P.2d 341 (Colo.1997). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Empire Cas. v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
green
1 sentence1997Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 764 P.2d 1191 (Colo.1988); Br na v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, supra. Hence, the trial court erred in giving effect to the “other insurance” excess clause in the Avis rental agreement in the face of Allstate’s excess clause. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Brna v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence1997Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 764 P.2d 1191 (Colo.1988); Br na v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, supra. Hence, the trial court erred in giving effect to the “other insurance” excess clause in the Avis rental agreement in the face of Allstate’s excess clause. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Budget Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992Rather, it will become effective only if there exists "other applicable insurance.” ’ 829 P.2d at 479 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance
green
2 sentences1989Yet, that would be the result if the proviso to the umbrella coverage were to be interpreted to refer to the excess clause in the Allstate policy. *1347 Further, the intent of the language of the proviso cannot accurately be divined without recognizing that there has been developed a tertiary level of liability insurance, sometimes referred to as “secondary excess coverage.” See Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 51 N.Y.2d 651 , 435 N.Y.S.2d 953 , 417 N.E.2d 66 (1980). 1989Yet, that would be the result if the proviso to the umbrella coverage were to be interpreted to refer to the excess clause in the Allstate policy. *1347 Further, the intent of the language of the proviso cannot accurately be divined without recognizing that there has been developed a tertiary level of liability insurance, sometimes referred to as “secondary excess coverage.” See Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 51 N.Y.2d 651 , 435 N.Y.S.2d 953 , 417 N.E.2d 66 (1980). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.