5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lauric v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.green1 sentence2022Co., 209 P.3d 190, 193 (Colo. App. 2009) (“Although the decision in Clementi involved a late notice of claim, we conclude that the supreme court, as evidenced by the decision in Friedland and its disapproval of the Hawkeye decision in Clementi, would apply the notice-prejudice rule to an insured's failure to notify the insurer of, and obtain its consent to, a settlement with a tortfeasor in a UIM case.”), with Stresscon, ¶¶ 8-9 (“We did not [in Friedland] also implicitly extend our newly minted notice-prejudice rule to no- voluntary-payments or consent-to-settle provisions.”). ¶ 32 In our view | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marez v. Dairyland Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2005Co., 638 P.2d 286 (Colo.1981) (“Marez") should be overruled with respect to liability insurance policies. 2. 2005Co., 638 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1981) applies to the notice provisions of the proposed AIG liability insurance policy rather than the Notice/Prejudice Rule.” . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Clementi v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2009As noted in Clementi, 16 P.3d at 230 , forfeiting insurance benefits when the insurer has not suffered any prejudice would be a disproportionate penalty and provide the insurer a windfall based on a technical violation of the policy. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Haller v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1998Haller v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 936 P.2d 601 (Colo.App.1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.