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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rodriquez v. Nurseries, Inc.green1 sentence2019See, e.g., Rodriquez v. Nurseries, Inc., 815 P.2d 1006, 1008 (Colo. App. 1991) (“As it pertains to the immunity from suit of a complying employer, the exclusivity of the Workers’ Compensation Act has been 15 continually reaffirmed . . . .”). | 1 | 1 |
USAA v. Parkergreen1 sentence2019Consequently a finding of no liability or of limited damages on the part of the uninsured motorist will eliminate or limit a claim under the insurance provider’s UM coverage.”) (emphasis added); see also USAA v. Parker, 200 P.3d 350, 358 (Colo. 2009) (“The language of the UM/UIM statute indicates that its aim is to provide the insured a means to recover from the insurer all of the ‘damages’ he or she is legally entitled to recover in an action against the tortfeasor up to the insured’s policy limits.”) (emphasis added). ¶ 34 But where WCA immunity protects the tortfeasor, this immunity is “fro | 1 | 1 |
Popovich v. Irlandogreen2 sentences2009See Popovich, 811 P.2d at 385 (defendant bears the burden of establishing exclusivity defenses under WCA). 2009See Popovich, 811 P.2d at 385 (defendant bears the burden of establishing exclusivity defenses under WCA). | 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 sentences2024Id. ¶9 After hearing the parties' arguments, the court observed that federal district judges in Colorado have "recently been struggling" with the question of whether an employee injured in the course of their employment by an underinsured third-party tortfeasor and who receives workers' compensation benefits can nonetheless 8 recover benefits from their employer's UM/UIM carrier. [2] Faced with conflicting precedent interpreting and applying the language of the WCA's immunity and exclusivity provisions, and recognizing the significant public policy implications for Colorado workers' compensati 2021Allowing Ryser to collect UM/UIM benefits here, in contrast, would directly implicate those immunities. ¶33 We likewise are unpersuaded by Ryser's argument that our decision in Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichael , 906 P.2d 92 ( Colo. 1995 ) , compels the conclusion that Ryser is entitled to collect UM/UIM benefits under the Shelter policy because, in his view, Babion stood in the position of a third- party to the tort at issue and thus her WCA immunity was not implicated. | 4 | 2019–2024 |
v. Shelter Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2024Id. at ¶ 29, 480 P.3d at 1291 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.