Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 10
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-13-101 (2026)

Interinsurance contracts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Individuals, partnerships, and corporations of this state, referred to in this article as "subscribers", are authorized to exchange reciprocal or interinsurance contracts with each other, or with individuals, partnerships, and corporations of other states and countries, providing indemnity among themselves from any loss which may be insured against under other provisions of the law, excepting life insurance, if such subscribers, through their attorneys, attorneys-in-fact, agents, or other representatives, deposit and maintain on deposit with the commissioner moneys or securities of the value of fifty thousand dollars as security for the performance of all such contracts issued in this state or in any other state or country by such subscribers and as security for any act or omission by an attorney-in-fact required to be bonded for or secured against under any attorney-in-fact bond required by the laws of any state in which the reciprocal or interinsurance exchange does business. Such securities shall be such as are required for lawful investments of capital and reserve of domestic insurance companies by the provisions of sections 10-3-215 to 10-3-230. In lieu of such deposit or part thereof, the commissioner may accept a certificate of the public official having supervision over insurers in any other state to the effect that a like deposit by such insurer or a like part thereof in an equal or a greater amount is held in public custody in such state. The offices through which such indemnity is exchanged shall be classified as reciprocal or interinsurance exchanges.

Source: L. 13: p. 373, § 81. C.L. § 2554. CSA: C. 87, § 98. L. 47: p. 589, § 1. CRS 53: § 72-4-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 72-4-1. L. 73: p. 845, § 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–1987 · leading case: Benham v. Mfrs. & Wholesalers Indem. Exch., 685 P.2d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Benham v. Mfrs. & Wholesalers Indem. Exch., 685 P.2d 249 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Section 10-13-101, C.R.S. The subscribers insure each other; thus, each subscriber is both an insurer and an insured.”
Alias Smith & Jones, Inc. v. Barnes, 695 P.2d 302 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See § 10-13-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973. On November 11, 1974, the commissioner ordered the division of insurance to conduct an examination of M & W because of concerns he had regarding the company’s financial condition.”
Benham v. Pryke, 744 P.2d 67 (Colo. 1987). “The Manufacturers and Wholesalers Indemnity Exchange [hereinafter M & W] was established in 1952 as an interinsur-anee exchange domiciled in Colorado and governed by sections 10-13-101 to -114, 4 C.R.S. (1973 & 1986 Supp.”
Benham v. Pryke, 703 P.2d 644 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “M & W was an interinsurance exchange governed by § 10-13-101, et seq., C.R.S. Consequently, M & W subscribers were subject to contingent assessment liability if M & W’s liabilities in a given year exceeded its assets.”
Benham v. Pryke, 636 P.2d 1339 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). “M&W was an interinsurance exchange governed by § 10-13-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973. M&W subscribers, consequently, were subject to contingent assessment liability if M&W’s liabilities in a given year exceeded its assets.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.