Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-201 (2026)

Definitions

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

As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Arbitration organization" means an association, agency, board, commission, or other entity that is neutral and initiates, sponsors, or administers an arbitration proceeding or is involved in the appointment of an arbitrator.

(2) "Arbitrator" means an individual appointed to render an award, alone or with others, in a controversy that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(3) "Court" means a court of competent jurisdiction in this state.

(4) "Knowledge" means actual knowledge.

(5) "Person" means an individual; corporation; business trust; estate; trust; partnership; limited liability company; association; joint venture; government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation; or any other legal or commercial entity.

(6) "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1718, § 1, effective August 4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: JA Walker Co., Inc. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007).
JA Walker Co., Inc. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 11× “Instead, the trial court held that "the arbitration provisions incorporated into the Subcontract Agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant Cambria Corporation through the General Conditions of the prime construction project are enforceable and valid in accordance with the…”
Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). · cites it 7× “bers of the professional organization should disputes arise among themselves; (2) each of these brokers were members of the organization when they entered into the alleged referral fee agreement and the disputes arose; and (3) their consents to arbitrate constituted an implied…”
Dale v. Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co., 948 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 10× “of these rules or provisions of section 13-22-201, C.R.S., et seq., the decision of the arbitrators shall be final.”
Huizar v. Allstate Ins. Co., 952 P.2d 342 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 6× “(1997), (2) the policy against undue delay in access to the courts and in favor of speedy resolution of disputes contained in Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 6, and (3) the policy in favor of encouraging arbitration as an alternative to litigation embodied in Colorado…”
Bucholtz v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 773 P.2d 590 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “Both parties initiated post-arbitration proceedings in Denver District Court pursuant to § 13-22-201, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “According to the Ingolds, an allegation of fraudulent inducement is to be determined by the trial court-not the arbitrator-under the former version of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, sections 13-22-201 to -223, C.R.S. (2003) (the "CUAA").”
Moffett v. Life Care Centers of Am., 219 P.3d 1068 (Colo. 2009). “XVIII, § 3; Uniform Arbitration Act, §§ 13-22-201 to -2830, C.R.S. (2009); Lane, 145 P.”
Atmel Corp. v. Vitesee Semiconductor Corp., 30 P.3d 789 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that, because not all of Atmel's claims were covered by an arbitration clause, because defendants Jenkins and Vitesse were not subject to arbitration, and because the facts and issues concerning the arbitrable and non-arbitrable claims were intertwined,…”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Summit Park Townhome Ass'n, 100 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 2× “An appraisal process like the one provided by the policy here has been “classified as an arbitration” pursuant to the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-201 , et seq. (“CUAA”), by at least one judge.”
Radil v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 233 P.3d 688 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 2× “XVIII, § 3; §§ 13-22-201 to -230, C.R.S. (2009); Peterman v.”
Kutch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 960 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 4× “The two issues we agreed to consider under our order granting certiorari can be reduced to a single question: Under what circumstances and on what grounds is an arbitration award subject to attack in a confirmation proceeding? To answer this question, we must examine the…”
Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 487 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “XVIII, § 3; §§ 13-22-201 to -223, 5 C.R.S. (1997); Judd Constr.”
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.