Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102 (2026)

Exemplary damages

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) (a) In all civil actions in which damages are assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property, and the injury complained of is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct, the jury, in addition to the actual damages sustained by such party, may award him reasonable exemplary damages. The amount of such reasonable exemplary damages shall not exceed an amount which is equal to the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party. (b) As used in this section, "willful and wanton conduct" means conduct purposefully committed which the actor must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to consequences, or of the rights and safety of others, particularly the plaintiff. (1.5) (a) A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may not be included in any initial claim for relief. A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may be allowed by amendment to the pleadings only after the exchange of initial disclosures pursuant to rule 26 of the Colorado rules of civil procedure and the plaintiff establishes prima facie proof of a triable issue. After the plaintiff establishes the existence of a triable issue of exemplary damages, the court may, in its discretion, allow additional discovery on the issue of exemplary damages as the court deems appropriate. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1.5) shall not apply to any civil action or arbitration proceeding described in section 13-21-203 (3)(c) or 13-64-302.5 (3). (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the court may reduce or disallow the award of exemplary damages to the extent that: (a) The deterrent effect of the damages has been accomplished; or (b) The conduct which resulted in the award has ceased; or (c) The purpose of such damages has otherwise been served. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, the court may increase any award of exemplary damages, to a sum not to exceed three times the amount of actual damages, if it is shown that: (a) The defendant has continued the behavior or repeated the action which is the subject of the claim against the defendant in a willful and wanton manner, either against the plaintiff or another person or persons, during the pendency of the case; or (b) The defendant has acted in a willful and wanton manner during the pendency of the action in a manner which has further aggravated the damages of the plaintiff when the defendant knew or should have known such action would produce aggravation. (4) Repealed. (5) Unless otherwise provided by law, exemplary damages shall not be awarded in administrative or arbitration proceedings, even if the award or decision is enforced or approved in an action commenced in a court. (6) In any civil action in which exemplary damages may be awarded, evidence of the income or net worth of a party shall not be considered in determining the appropriateness or amount of such damages.

Source: L. 1889: p. 64, § 1. R.S. 08: § 2067. C.L. § 6307. CSA: C. 50, § 6. CRS 53: § 41-2-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 41-2-2. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 675, § 1, effective July 1. L. 95: (4) repealed, p. 14, § 1, effective March 9. L. 2003: (1.5) added, p. 1044, § 1, effective August 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 318 cases (65 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d 301 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d 301 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 72× “Colorado's exemplary damages statute, section 13-21-102, C.R.S.2008, provides: (1) (a) In all civil actions in which damages are assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property, and the injury complained of is attended by circumstances of fraud,…”

Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 50× “Finally, Blood's counsel explained that Qwest's post-accident practices were relevant to prove Qwest's state of mind and, more specifically, the willful and wanton nature of its conduct as required for an award of exemplary damages under section 13-21-102. Blood thus asked the…”

Kirk v. Denver Publ'g Co., 818 P.2d 262 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 167× “1, § 13-21-102, 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 675-76. Section 13-21-102(1)(a), which substantially follows the initial Colorado exemplary damages statute enacted in 1889, [5] see 1889 Colo.”

Palmer v. AH Robins Co., Inc., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 48× “(1973), because of Robins' challenge to the constitutionality of the punitive damages statute, section 13-21-102, 6 C.R.S. (1973). We accepted jurisdiction and address in this opinion all claims, constitutional and otherwise, raised by Robins.”

Lira v. Davis, 832 P.2d 240 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 51× “Subsection (1)(a) of section 13-21-102, 6A C.R.S. (1987), was amended in 1986 by House Bill 1197 to limit the amount of exemplary damages to the amount of "actual damages awarded.”

Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 24× “[9] *427 II Farmers contends that the treble damages provision of section 10-4-708(1) is punitive in nature and therefore falls under the requirement of section 13-25-127(2), 6A C.”

e Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Est. of Casper, 2018 CO 43 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 8× “(2016), was not determined until after death. 3. Whether attorney fees and costs awarded under section 10-3-1116, C.”

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008). · cites it 4× “, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-102 (1)(a) (2007) (1:1); Ohio Rev.”

Mortg. Fin., Inc. v. Podleski, 742 P.2d 900 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 18× “We disagree, based upon our interpretation of the exemplary damages statute, section 13-21-102, 6 C.R.S. (1973). Accordingly, we reverse.”

v. SCC Pueblo, 2019 COA 178 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “1982) (“[B]y its own terms section 13-21-102 has no application in the absence of a successful underlying claim for actual damages.”

Corbetta v. Albertson's, Inc., 975 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1999). · cites it 23× “1, § 13-21-102; see also Kirk v. Denver Publ’g Co.”

Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. R-2 v. Price, 805 P.2d 1085 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 22× “At the time of the trial, the jury could award reasonable punitive damages in appropriate cases only when the injury complained of was "attended by circumstances of fraud, malice or insult, or a wanton and reckless disregard *1097 of the injured party's rights and feelings.”

Show all 318 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1) — 10 cases

Qwest Servs. Corp. v. Blood, 252 P.3d 1071 (Colo. 2011). “Finally, Blood's counsel explained that Qwest's post-accident practices were relevant to prove Qwest's state of mind and, more specifically, the willful and wanton nature of its conduct as required for an award of exemplary damages under section 13-21-102. Blood thus asked the…”

v. SCC Pueblo, 2019 COA 178 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019). “1982) (“[B]y its own terms section 13-21-102 has no application in the absence of a successful underlying claim for actual damages.”

Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988).

Borquez v. Robert C. Ozer, PC, 923 P.2d 166 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Elliott v. Aspen Brokers, Ltd., 811 F. Supp. 586 (D. Colo. 1993).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1)(16) — 1 case

Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1)(6) — 1 case

Rohrbough v. Stone, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (D. Colo. 2001).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1)(a) — 48 cases

e Trust Life Ins. Co. v. Est. of Casper, 2018 CO 43 (Colo. 2018). “(2016), was not determined until after death. 3. Whether attorney fees and costs awarded under section 10-3-1116, C.”

Kirk v. Denver Publ'g Co., 818 P.2d 262 (Colo. 1991). “1, § 13-21-102, 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 675-76. Section 13-21-102(1)(a), which substantially follows the initial Colorado exemplary damages statute enacted in 1889, [5] see 1889 Colo.”

Lira v. Davis, 832 P.2d 240 (Colo. 1992). “Subsection (1)(a) of section 13-21-102, 6A C.R.S. (1987), was amended in 1986 by House Bill 1197 to limit the amount of exemplary damages to the amount of "actual damages awarded.”

Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008). “, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-21-102 (1)(a) (2007) (1:1); Ohio Rev.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(1)(b) — 44 cases

Blood v. Qwest Servs. Corp., 224 P.3d 301 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). “Colorado's exemplary damages statute, section 13-21-102, C.R.S.2008, provides: (1) (a) In all civil actions in which damages are assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property, and the injury complained of is attended by circumstances of fraud,…”

Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007).

Forman v. Brown, 944 P.2d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Sonitrol Mgmt. Corp., 192 P.3d 543 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(2) — 8 cases

Sky Fun 1 v. Schuttloffel, 27 P.3d 361 (Colo. 2001).

Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1991).

Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 564 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D. Colo. 2008).

Hensley v. Tri-QSI Denver Corp., 98 P.3d 965 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(2)(a) — 2 cases

Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991). “[9] *427 II Farmers contends that the treble damages provision of section 10-4-708(1) is punitive in nature and therefore falls under the requirement of section 13-25-127(2), 6A C.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(3) — 10 cases

Harvey v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 983 P.2d 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

People v. Wunder, 2016 COA 46 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).

Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. R-2 v. Price, 805 P.2d 1085 (Colo. 1991). “At the time of the trial, the jury could award reasonable punitive damages in appropriate cases only when the injury complained of was "attended by circumstances of fraud, malice or insult, or a wanton and reckless disregard *1097 of the injured party's rights and feelings.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(3)(a) — 7 cases

Double Oak Constr. L.L.C. v. Cornerstone Dev. Int'l, L.L.C., 97 P.3d 140 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(3)(b) — 2 cases

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

Perez v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc (D. Colo. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(4) — 10 cases

Life Ins. Co. of Georgia v. Johnson, 684 So. 2d 685 (Ala. 1996).

Dunn v. Hovic, 1 F.3d 1371 (3rd Cir. 1993).

McCullough v. Golden Rule Ins. Co., 789 P.2d 855 (Wyo. 1990).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(5) — 3 cases

Pyle v. Sec. U.S.A., Inc., 758 F. Supp. 638 (D. Colo. 1991).

Quist v. Specialties Supply Co., Inc., 12 P.3d 863 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Padilla v. DE Frey & Co., Inc., 939 P.2d 475 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(6) — 10 cases

Corbetta v. Albertson's, Inc., 975 P.2d 718 (Colo. 1999). “1, § 13-21-102; see also Kirk v. Denver Publ’g Co.”

Amber Props., Ltd. v. Howard Elec. & Mech. Co., 775 P.2d 43 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Lundsford v. W. States Life Ins., 872 P.2d 1308 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Walford v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 793 P.2d 620 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(8) — 4 cases

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

Parsons Ex Rel. Parsons v. Allstate Ins. Co., 165 P.3d 809 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).

Hensley v. Tri-QSI Denver Corp., 98 P.3d 965 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).

Vickery v. Vickery, 271 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(8)(a) — 3 cases

Vickery v. Vickery, 271 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(8)(b) — 1 case

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(83) — 1 case

Gen. Steel Dom. Sales, LLC v. Bacheller, 291 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2012).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(a)(l) — 1 case

Gwin v. Chesrown Chevrolet, Inc., 931 P.2d 466 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(l)(a) — 37 cases

Gen. Elec. Co. v. Niemet, 866 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1994).

W. Fire Truck, Inc. v. Emergency One, Inc., 134 P.3d 570 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).

Wood v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ'g Co., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1230 (D. Colo. 2008).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102(l)(b) — 21 cases

Miller v. Byrne, 916 P.2d 566 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001).

Dale v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1997).

Moody v. Ungerer, 885 P.2d 200 (Colo. 1994).

Bonidy v. Vail Valley Ctr. for Aesthetic Dentistry, P.C., 232 P.3d 277 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

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.