Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5 (2026)

Limitations on damages for noneconomic loss or injury - definitions

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that awards in civil actions for noneconomic losses or injuries often unduly burden the economic, commercial, and personal welfare of persons in this state; therefore, for the protection of the public peace, health, and welfare, the general assembly enacts this section placing monetary limitations on such damages for noneconomic losses or injuries.

(2) As used in this section:

(a) "Derivative noneconomic loss or injury" means nonpecuniary harm or emotional stress to persons other than the person suffering the direct or primary loss or injury. (a.5) "Inflation" means the annual percentage change in the United States department of labor's bureau of labor statistics consumer price index for Denver-Aurora-Lakewood for all items paid by all urban consumers, or its successor index.

(b) "Noneconomic loss or injury" means nonpecuniary harm for which damages are recoverable by the person suffering the direct or primary loss or injury, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life. "Noneconomic loss or injury" includes a damage recovery for nonpecuniary harm for actions brought under section 13-21-201 or 13-21-202.

(3) (a) (I) In any civil action filed before January 1, 2025, other than any civil action or binding arbitration for damages in tort brought against a health-care professional, as defined in section 13-64-202 (4), or a health-care institution, as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), in which damages for noneconomic loss or injury may be awarded, the total of such damages shall not exceed the sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars, unless the court finds justification by clear and convincing evidence therefor. In no case shall the amount of noneconomic loss or injury damages in an action filed before January 1, 2025, exceed five hundred thousand dollars.

(II) In any civil action filed on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2026, or any claim for relief that accrues on or after January 1, 2025, other than any civil action or binding arbitration for damages in tort brought against a health-care professional, as defined in section 13-64-202 (4), or a health-care institution, as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), or wrongful death action, in which damages for derivative or direct noneconomic loss or injury may be awarded, the total amount of such damages that may be awarded must not exceed the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars.

(III) The damages for noneconomic loss or injury in any civil action or binding arbitration for damages in tort brought against a health-care professional, as defined in section 13-64-202 (4), or a health-care institution, as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall be governed by section 13-64-302.

(IV) The damages for noneconomic loss or injury in a wrongful death action shall be governed by section 13-21-203.

(b) In any civil action, no damages for derivative noneconomic loss or injury may be awarded unless the court finds justification by clear and convincing evidence therefor.

(c) (I) (A) The limitations on damages set forth in subsection (3)(a)(I) of this section must be adjusted for inflation as of January 1, 1998, January 1, 2008, January 1, 2020, and on January 1 every two years thereafter until January 1, 2024. The adjustments made on January 1, 1998, January 1, 2008, January 1, 2020, and on January 1 every two years thereafter until January 1, 2024, must be based on the cumulative annual adjustment for inflation for each year since the effective date of the damages limitations in subsection (3)(a)(I) of this section.

(B) The limitations on damages set forth in subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section must be adjusted for inflation on January 1, 2028, and on January 1 every two years thereafter. The adjustments made on January 1, 2028, and on January 1 every two years thereafter must be based on the cumulative annual adjustment for inflation for each year since the effective date of the damages limitations in subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section.

(C) The inflation adjustments made pursuant to this subsection (3)(c)(I) must be rounded upward or downward to the nearest ten-dollar increment.

(II) Repealed.

(III) The secretary of state shall certify the adjusted limitation on damages within fourteen days after the appropriate information is available, and, for purposes of the limitation on damages specified in subsections (3)(a)(I) and (3)(b) of this section:

(A) The adjusted limitation on damages is applicable to all claims for relief that accrue on or after January 1, 1998, and before January 1, 2008;

(B) The adjusted limitation on damages as of January 1, 2008, is applicable to all claims for relief that accrue on and after January 1, 2008, and before January 1, 2020; and

(C) The adjusted limitation on damages as of January 1, 2020, and each January 1 every two years thereafter is applicable to all claims for relief that accrue on and after the specified January 1 and before the January 1 two years thereafter. (III.5) For purposes of the limitation on damages specified in subsection (3)(a)(II) of this section, the secretary of state shall certify the adjusted limitation on damages within fourteen days after the appropriate information is available. The adjusted limitation on damages as of January 1, 2028, and as of each January 1 every two years thereafter, is applicable to all claims for relief that accrue on or after the specified January 1 and before the January 1 two years thereafter.

(IV) Nothing in this subsection (3) shall change the limitations on damages set forth in section 13-64-302, or the limitation on damages set forth in section 33-44-113, C.R.S.

(4) The limitations specified in subsection (3) of this section shall not be disclosed to a jury in any such action, but shall be imposed by the court before judgment.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the recovery of compensatory damages for physical impairment or disfigurement.

(6) (a) (I) In any claim for breach of contract, damages for noneconomic loss or injury or for derivative noneconomic loss or injury are recoverable only if:

(A) The recovery for such damages is specifically authorized in the contract that is the subject of the claim; or

(B) In any first-party claim brought against an insurer for breach of an insurance contract, the plaintiff demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed willful and wanton breach of contract.

(II) For purposes of this paragraph (a), "willful and wanton breach of contract" means that:

(A) The defendant intended to breach the contract;

(B) The defendant breached the contract without any reasonable justification; and

(C) The contract clearly indicated that damages for noneconomic loss or injury or for derivative noneconomic damages or loss were within the contemplation or expectation of the parties.

(b) Except for the breach of contract damages that are permitted pursuant to sub- subparagraph (B) of subparagraph (I) of paragraph (a) of this subsection (6), nothing in this subsection (6) shall be construed to prohibit one or more parties from waiving the recovery of damages for noneconomic loss or injury or for derivative noneconomic loss or injury on a breach of contract claim so long as the waiver is explicit and in writing.

(c) The limitations on damages set forth in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in any civil action to the aggregate sum of any noneconomic damages awarded under this section for breach of contract including but not limited to bad faith breach of contract.

(d) In any civil action in which an award of damages for noneconomic loss or injury or for derivative noneconomic loss or injury is made on a breach of contract claim, the court shall state such award in the judgment separately from any other damages award.

(e) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (6), nothing in this subsection (6) shall be construed to govern the recovery of noneconomic damages on a tort claim for bad faith breach of contract.

Source: L. 86: Entire section added, p. 677, § 1, effective July 1. L. 89: (2)(b) amended, p. 752, § 1, effective July 1. L. 97: (3)(c) added, p. 923, § 4, effective August 6. L. 2003: (3)(a) amended, p. 1787, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2004: (6) added, p. 770, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2007: (3)(c)(I) and (3)(c)(III) amended, p. 329, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2019: (3)(c)(I) and

(3)(c)(III) amended, (SB 19-109), ch. 83, p. 296, § 2, effective August 2. L. 2024: (2)(a.5) and (3)(c)(III.5) added, (3)(a), (3)(b), (3)(c)(I), and IP(3)(c)(III) amended, and (3)(c)(II) repealed, (HB 24-1472), ch. 325, p. 2170, § 2, effective January 1, 2025.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act enacting subsection (3)(c), see section 1 of chapter 172, Session Laws of Colorado 1997. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2004 act enacting subsection (6), see section 1 of chapter 232, Session Laws of Colorado 2004. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2007 act amending subsections (3)(c)(I) and (3)(c)(III), see section 1 of chapter 83, Session Laws of Colorado 2007. For the legislative declaration in HB 24-1472, see section 1 of chapter 325, Session Laws of Colorado 2024.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 79 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433 (Colo. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 105× “Resolution of this issue necessitates that we determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 5 C.R.S. (2001), which limits noneconomic damages in general, civil actions, and section 13-64-302, 5 C.”

Jacqueline Gebert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2023 COA 107 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 12× “— Torts — Personal Injury — Negligence — Vicarious Liability; Damages — Limitations on Damages for Noneconomic Loss or Injury; Constitutional Law — Seventh Amendment — Right to Civil Jury Trial In this personal injury action, the plaintiff cross-appeals the district court’s…”

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 52× “We granted certiorari to determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

Colorado Permanente Med. Grp., P.C. v. Evans, 926 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 20× “), which provides that: In any civil action in which damages for noneconomic loss or injury may be awarded, the total of such damages shall not exceed the sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars, unless the court finds justification by clear and convincing evidence therefor.”

Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 20× “The trial judge reduced the verdict for noneconomic damage by $118,000 to comply with the statutory limit of $500,000 imposed by section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

Lanahan v. Chi Psi Fraternity, 175 P.3d 97 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 53× “All damages accruing under section 13-21-202 shall be sued for and recovered by the same parties and in the same manner as provided in section 13-21-201, and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they may deem fair and just, with reference to the necessary…”

Scholz v. Metro. Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 22× “" As such, the scope of section 13-21-102.5 is much broader than the damage limitations of the *908 HCAA, which apply only in certain types of civil actions against particular types of defendants.”

Giampapa v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 64 P.3d 230 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 10× “” Finally, we apply Colorado’s willful-and-wanton rule to Giampapa and find that (1) the “law of the case doctrine” is inapplicable here; (2) his case satisfies the elements of the willful-and-wanton rule; and (3) the full $900,000 award stands because American Family has waived…”

Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d 301 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “After reducing the noneconomic damage awards under section 13-21-102.5(@8)(a), C.R.98.2008, judgment was entered against *310 Qwest for a total of $89,867,186, including prejudgment interest.”

Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 9× “4, § 13-21-102.5, 1997 Colo. Sess. Laws 921 , 923; see also § 13-21-102.”

Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 16× “1, § 13-21-102.5, 2003 Colo. Sess. Laws 1787 .”

Scharrel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 949 P.2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11× “On cross-appeal, plaintiffs assert that § 13-21-102.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), which limits the amount recoverable for non-economic damages, is unconstitutional.”

Show all 79 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(1) — 6 cases

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1994). “We granted certiorari to determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

Scharrel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 949 P.2d 89 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). “On cross-appeal, plaintiffs assert that § 13-21-102.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), which limits the amount recoverable for non-economic damages, is unconstitutional.”

James v. Coors Brewing Co., 73 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D. Colo. 1999).

Valdez v. Pringle, 143 P.3d 1069 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).

Niemet v. Gen. Elec. Co., 843 P.2d 87 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(2) — 1 case

Bayer v. Crested Butte Mountain Resort, Inc., 960 P.2d 70 (Colo. 1998).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(2)(a) — 4 cases

Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433 (Colo. 2001). “Resolution of this issue necessitates that we determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 5 C.R.S. (2001), which limits noneconomic damages in general, civil actions, and section 13-64-302, 5 C.”

Dupont v. Preston, 9 P.3d 1193 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Evans v. Colorado Permanente Med. Grp., P.C., 902 P.2d 867 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Wallbank v. Rothenberg, 74 P.3d 413 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(2)(b) — 17 cases

Schuessler v. Wolter, 310 P.3d 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007). “1, § 13-21-102.5, 2003 Colo. Sess. Laws 1787 .”

Reigel v. SavaSeniorCare L.L.C., 292 P.3d 977 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

Aller v. LLaw Off. of Carole C. Schriefer, PC, 140 P.3d 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3) — 5 cases

Cooley v. Paraho Dev. Corp., 851 P.2d 207 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Ledstrom by & Through Ledstrom v. Keeling, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Colo. 1998).

Harris v. Stallings (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a) — 26 cases

Jacqueline Gebert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2023 COA 107 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). “— Torts — Personal Injury — Negligence — Vicarious Liability; Damages — Limitations on Damages for Noneconomic Loss or Injury; Constitutional Law — Seventh Amendment — Right to Civil Jury Trial In this personal injury action, the plaintiff cross-appeals the district court’s…”

Scholz v. Metro. Pathologists, P.C., 851 P.2d 901 (Colo. 1993). “" As such, the scope of section 13-21-102.5 is much broader than the damage limitations of the *908 HCAA, which apply only in certain types of civil actions against particular types of defendants.”

Giampapa v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 64 P.3d 230 (Colo. 2003). “” Finally, we apply Colorado’s willful-and-wanton rule to Giampapa and find that (1) the “law of the case doctrine” is inapplicable here; (2) his case satisfies the elements of the willful-and-wanton rule; and (3) the full $900,000 award stands because American Family has waived…”

Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d 301 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “After reducing the noneconomic damage awards under section 13-21-102.5(@8)(a), C.R.98.2008, judgment was entered against *310 Qwest for a total of $89,867,186, including prejudgment interest.”

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1994). “We granted certiorari to determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a)(I) — 1 case

Wierimaa v. Cheng (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(c) — 1 case

Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). “4, § 13-21-102.5, 1997 Colo. Sess. Laws 921 , 923; see also § 13-21-102.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(c)(I) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(c)(III) — 2 cases

Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). “4, § 13-21-102.5, 1997 Colo. Sess. Laws 921 , 923; see also § 13-21-102.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(c)(IV) — 1 case

Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). “4, § 13-21-102.5, 1997 Colo. Sess. Laws 921 , 923; see also § 13-21-102.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(4) — 2 cases

Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, 863 P.2d 310 (Colo. 1993). “The trial judge reduced the verdict for noneconomic damage by $118,000 to comply with the statutory limit of $500,000 imposed by section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1994). “We granted certiorari to determine the relationship between section 13-21-102.5, 6A C.R.S. (1987 & 1993 Supp.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(5) — 6 cases

Pringle v. Valdez, 171 P.3d 624 (Colo. 2007). “1, § 13-21-102.5, 2003 Colo. Sess. Laws 1787 .”

Dupont v. Preston, 9 P.3d 1193 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Cooley v. Paraho Dev. Corp., 851 P.2d 207 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Ledstrom by & Through Ledstrom v. Keeling, 10 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Colo. 1998).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(6)(a)(I) — 1 case

Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp., 300 P.3d 963 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(8)(a) — 2 cases

Palmer v. Diaz, 214 P.3d 546 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

Wallbank v. Rothenberg, 74 P.3d 413 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(b) — 1 case

Susan Ann Scholle v. Edward Ehrichs (Colo. Ct. App. 2022).

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.