(1) (a) Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, except as provided in section 24-10-106.3, C.R.S., in any civil action of any nature commenced or appealed in any court of record in this state:
(I) If the plaintiff serves an offer of settlement in writing at any time more than fourteen days before the commencement of the trial that is rejected by the defendant, and the plaintiff recovers a final judgment in excess of the amount offered, then the plaintiff shall be awarded actual costs accruing after the offer of settlement to be paid by the defendant.
(II) If the defendant serves an offer of settlement in writing at any time more than fourteen days before the commencement of the trial that is rejected by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff does not recover a final judgment in excess of the amount offered, then the defendant shall be awarded actual costs accruing after the offer of settlement to be paid by the plaintiff. However, as provided in section 13-16-104, if the plaintiff is the prevailing party in the action, the plaintiff's final judgment shall include the amount of the plaintiff's actual costs that accrued prior to the offer of settlement.
(III) If an offer of settlement is not accepted in writing within fourteen days after service of the offer, the offer shall be deemed rejected, and the party who made the offer is not precluded from making a subsequent offer. Evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.
(IV) If an offer of settlement is accepted in writing within fourteen days after service of the offer, the offer of settlement shall constitute a binding settlement agreement, fully enforceable by the court in which the civil action is pending.
(V) An offer of settlement under this section shall remain open for at least fourteen days from the date of service unless withdrawn by service of withdrawal of the offer of settlement.
(VI) An offer of settlement served at any time fourteen days or less before the commencement of the trial shall not be subject to this section, and evidence thereof is not admissible for any purpose.
(b) For purposes of this section, "actual costs" shall not include attorney fees but shall mean costs actually paid or owed by the party, or his or her attorneys or agents, in connection with the case, including but not limited to filing fees, subpoena fees, reasonable expert witness fees, copying costs, court reporter fees, reasonable investigative expenses and fees, reasonable travel expenses, exhibit or visual aid preparation or presentation expenses, legal research expenses, and all other similar fees and expenses.
(2) When comparing the amount of any offer of settlement to the amount of a final judgment actually awarded, any amount of the final judgment representing interest subsequent to the date of the offer in settlement shall not be considered.
(3) When the liability of one party to another has been determined by verdict or order or judgment, but the amount or extent of the liability remains to be determined by further proceedings, the party adjudged liable may make an offer of settlement, which shall have the same effect as an offer made before trial (except with respect to costs already incurred) if it is served pursuant to subsection (1) of this section.
Source: L. 90: Entire section added, p. 852, § 14, effective May 31. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 1194, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 1359, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2008: (1)(a)(II) amended, p. 8, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2015: IP(1)(a) amended, (SB 15-213), ch. 266, p. 1039, § 5, effective June 3.
Cross references: (1) For the legislative declaration contained in the 1990 act enacting this section, see section 1 of chapter 100, Session Laws of Colorado 1990.
(2) For the legislative declaration in SB 15-213, see section 1 of chapter 266, Session Laws of Colorado 2015.
13-17-203. Limitation on attorney fees in class action litigation against public entities. If the plaintiffs prevail in any class action litigation brought against any public entity, as defined in section 24-10-103 (5), C.R.S., the amount of attorney fees which the plaintiffs' attorney is entitled to receive out of any award to the plaintiffs shall be determined by the court; except that such amount shall not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars. Such limitation shall apply where the public entity pays the attorney fees directly to the plaintiffs' attorneys or where the public entity is required to pay the attorney fees indirectly through any program it administers by reducing the benefits or amounts due to the individual plaintiffs.
Source: L. 92: Entire section added, p. 272, § 1, effective April 28.
Cross references: For provisions relating to limitations on attorney fees in class action litigation against public entities under the "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act", see § 24-10- 114.5.
PART 3
RETENTION OF ATTORNEYS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES - LIMITATION ON CONTINGENT FEE CONTRACTS
Notes of Decisions
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 182× “" Instead, the trial court stated: If defendants can be assured that an intervening dismissal would make an offer under § 13-17-202, C.R.S. ineffectual, they could make such offers freely and in good faith in the hopes of putting an end to the litigation, but without the spectre…”
White v. Est. of Soto-Lerma (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 13× “The jury then awarded plaintiff $100,000 in damages, which was in excess of the settlement offer.”
Danko v. Conyers (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 12× “1, § 13-17-202, 2008 Colo. Sess. Laws 8 , as recognized in Miller v.”
Dillen v. Healthone, L.L.C. (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 59× “In January 2003, HealthOne sent a letter to Dillen's counsel, pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, § 13-17-202, C.R.S.2003, offering to settle her claims for $95,000.”
Lawry v. Palm (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 15× “Plaintiffs also eross-appeal the trial court's order denying Lawry's request for costs pursuant to section 13-17-202, C.R.S. 2007. We affirm.”
Scholz v. Metro. Pathologists, P.C. (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 28× “1992) (only "reasonable" actual costs should be awarded under section 13-17-202 in order to avoid absurd result).”
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 15× “"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
Hall v. Frankel (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 11× “on the ground that, because the family did not recover amounts in excess of its pretrial offer, it did not meet the requirements of section 13-17-202, C.R.S.2007. The trial court granted the pulmonologist's motion for costs against the family pursuant to sections 13-16-105 and…”
Miller v. Hancock (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 63× “Hancock's first offer provided: "Defendant[,] pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-17-202 [,] offers SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($7,000) to settle all issues in the above matter.”
Huffman v. Westmoreland Coal Co. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 17× “Defendant argues that the offer of judgment qualifies as a settlement offer under section 13-17-202 and, because plaintiff rejected it, defendant is now entitled to recover its costs incurred after June 15, 2005, including the costs of this appeal.”
Guevara v. Foxhoven (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “and pursuant to § 13-17-202(3), C.R.S., as amended, submits to Plaintiff this Offer of Settlement in the amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500.”
DeCordova v. State (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 44× “She argued that, pursuant to § 13-17-202, C.R.S. (1993 Cum.Supp.), she was entitled to the additional recovery because the judgment entered was greater than her rejected offers of settlement.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1) — 4 cases
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel (Colo. 1993).
“" Instead, the trial court stated: If defendants can be assured that an intervening dismissal would make an offer under § 13-17-202, C.R.S. ineffectual, they could make such offers freely and in good faith in the hopes of putting an end to the litigation, but without the spectre…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a) — 5 cases
Dillen v. Healthone, L.L.C. (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“In January 2003, HealthOne sent a letter to Dillen's counsel, pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, § 13-17-202, C.R.S.2003, offering to settle her claims for $95,000.”
Hall v. Frankel (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
“on the ground that, because the family did not recover amounts in excess of its pretrial offer, it did not meet the requirements of section 13-17-202, C.R.S.2007. The trial court granted the pulmonologist's motion for costs against the family pursuant to sections 13-16-105 and…”
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(D) — 2 cases
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(I) — 8 cases
White v. Est. of Soto-Lerma (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“The jury then awarded plaintiff $100,000 in damages, which was in excess of the settlement offer.”
Danko v. Conyers (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“1, § 13-17-202, 2008 Colo. Sess. Laws 8 , as recognized in Miller v.”
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(I1) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(ID) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(II) — 14 cases
Miller v. Hancock (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“Hancock's first offer provided: "Defendant[,] pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-17-202 [,] offers SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($7,000) to settle all issues in the above matter.”
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(III) — 1 case
Dillen v. Healthone, L.L.C. (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“In January 2003, HealthOne sent a letter to Dillen's counsel, pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, § 13-17-202, C.R.S.2003, offering to settle her claims for $95,000.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(IV) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(Il) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(V) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(a)(V1I) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(1)(b) — 3 cases
Catlin v. Tormey Bewley Corp. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“"Actual Costs" under § 13-17-202 Catlin next contends the trial court erred in the first order by failing to include pre-offer attorney fees when determining whether the final judgment exceeded her statutory settlement offers under section 18-17-202(1)(a)(I).”
Danko v. Conyers (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“1, § 13-17-202, 2008 Colo. Sess. Laws 8 , as recognized in Miller v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(2) — 7 cases
Huffman v. Westmoreland Coal Co. (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Defendant argues that the offer of judgment qualifies as a settlement offer under section 13-17-202 and, because plaintiff rejected it, defendant is now entitled to recover its costs incurred after June 15, 2005, including the costs of this appeal.”
Miller v. Hancock (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
“Hancock's first offer provided: "Defendant[,] pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-17-202 [,] offers SEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($7,000) to settle all issues in the above matter.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(3) — 10 cases
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel (Colo. 1993).
“" Instead, the trial court stated: If defendants can be assured that an intervening dismissal would make an offer under § 13-17-202, C.R.S. ineffectual, they could make such offers freely and in good faith in the hopes of putting an end to the litigation, but without the spectre…”
Guevara v. Foxhoven (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“and pursuant to § 13-17-202(3), C.R.S., as amended, submits to Plaintiff this Offer of Settlement in the amount of ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($1,500.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(I)(a)(II) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(a)(l)(II) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(a) — 2 cases
Dillen v. Healthone, L.L.C. (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“In January 2003, HealthOne sent a letter to Dillen's counsel, pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, § 13-17-202, C.R.S.2003, offering to settle her claims for $95,000.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(a)(I) — 4 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(a)(II) — 18 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(a)(III) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(a)(IV) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-17-202(l)(b) — 1 case
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.