Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204 (2026)

Effect of agreement to arbitrate - nonwaivable provisions

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a party to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding may waive, or, the parties may vary the effect of, the requirements of this part 2 to the extent permitted by law.

(2) Before a controversy arises that is subject to an agreement to arbitrate, a party to the agreement may not:

(a) Waive or agree to vary the effect of the requirements of section 13-22-205 (1), 13- 22-206 (1), 13-22-208, 13-22-217 (1) or (2), 13-22-226, or 13-22-228;

(b) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 13-22-209 to notice of the initiation of an arbitration proceeding;

(c) Agree to unreasonably restrict the right under section 13-22-212 to disclosure of any facts by a neutral arbitrator; or

(d) Waive the right under section 13-22-216 of a party to an agreement to arbitrate to be represented by a lawyer at any proceeding or hearing under this part 2, but an employer and a labor organization may waive the right to representation by a lawyer in a labor arbitration.

(3) (a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), a party to an agreement to arbitrate or arbitration proceeding may not waive, or the parties may not vary the effect of, the requirements of this section or section 13-22-203 (1), 13-22-207, 13-22-214, 13-22- 218, 13-22-220 (4) or (5), 13-22-222, 13-22-223, 13-22-224, 13-22-225 (1) or (2), or 13-22-229.

(b) If the parties to an agreement to arbitrate or to an arbitration proceeding are a government, governmental subdivision, governmental agency, governmental instrumentality, public corporation, or any commercial entity, the parties may waive the requirements of section 13-22-223 except if the award was procured by corruption or fraud.

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1719, § 1, effective August 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 12× “The trial court, proceeding as required under § 13-22-204, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) to determine broker's request to compel arbitration, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that broker "failed to establish [that] the parties agreed to arbitrate or that the…”

Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 6× “In other words, a narrow reading of "contract" to include only enforceable contracts would gut the specific language of section 13-22-204 permitting the trial court to consider only challenges to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, as opposed to challenges to the…”

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 10× “There is no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 13-22-204 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”

Mountain Plains Constructors, Inc. v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 8× “When an order compelling arbitration is issued pursuant to section 13-22-204, 6A C.R.S. (1986), the proper procedure is to stay the action pending completion of the arbitration process.”

Peterman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 487 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 6× “[6] In so holding we join numerous other jurisdictions that have reached similar conclusions under similar facts.”

Gergel v. High View Homes, L.L.C., 58 P.3d 1132 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 9× “With respect to appellate review, the Act states as follows: An appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 13-22-204; (b) An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under section 13-22-204(2); (c) An…”

JA Walker Co., Inc. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “A fraudulent inducement claim directed specifically to the arbitration agreement is a challenge to "the existence of the agreement to arbitrate," § 13-22-204(1), C.R.S. (2003), and therefore must be resolved by the trial court under the statute.”

Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1 v. Shorey, 826 P.2d 830 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 4× “[3] Section 13-22-204, 6A C.R.S. (1987) states, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) On application of a party showing an agreement described in section 13-22-203 and the opposing party's refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but, if…”

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Dist. Court Ex Rel. City & Cnty. of Denver, 939 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 3× “See § 13-22-204(4), 6A C.R.S. (1987). The UAA contemplates that some causes of action may be severable from those which must be arbitrated.”

EAGLE RIDGE Condo. ASS'N. v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Section 13-22-204(1), C.R.S.2003; Eychner v.”

Hughley v. Rocky Mountain Health Maint. Org., Inc., 927 P.2d 1325 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 6× “Significantly, while RMHMO provided the court with a copy of the Benefits Contract and described its “exclusive complaint procedure,” including section 12D’s arbitration clause, its motion stated: “Here, RMHMO is not seeking an order compelling arbitration pursuant to section…”

Sandefer v. Dist. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver, 635 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 4× “The respondent court determined that the agreement to arbitrate was valid with respect to the common law claims and “pursuant to § 13-22-204(4), C.R.S. 1973, if such claims are severable from Plaintiff’s [petitioner’s] Securities Act claim, proceedings herein should be stayed…”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(1) — 13 cases

JA Walker Co., Inc. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). “A fraudulent inducement claim directed specifically to the arbitration agreement is a challenge to "the existence of the agreement to arbitrate," § 13-22-204(1), C.R.S. (2003), and therefore must be resolved by the trial court under the statute.”

Eychner v. Van Vleet, 870 P.2d 486 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “The trial court, proceeding as required under § 13-22-204, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) to determine broker's request to compel arbitration, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, ruling that broker "failed to establish [that] the parties agreed to arbitrate or that the…”

EAGLE RIDGE Condo. ASS'N. v. Metro. Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 13-22-204(1), C.R.S.2003; Eychner v.”

Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007). “In other words, a narrow reading of "contract" to include only enforceable contracts would gut the specific language of section 13-22-204 permitting the trial court to consider only challenges to the existence of an agreement to arbitrate, as opposed to challenges to the…”

Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Driv., Whsemen & Hlprs., 566 P.2d 1078 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(2) — 6 cases

Gergel v. High View Homes, L.L.C., 58 P.3d 1132 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “With respect to appellate review, the Act states as follows: An appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying an application to compel arbitration made under section 13-22-204; (b) An order granting an application to stay arbitration made under section 13-22-204(2); (c) An…”

Associated Nat. Gas, Inc. v. Nordic Petroleums, Inc., 807 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Cabs, Inc., 751 P.2d 61 (Colo. 1988). “There is no arbitration agreement and the issue was not adversely determined in proceedings under section 13-22-204 and the party did not participate in the arbitration hearing without raising the objection.”

Cabs, Inc. v. Delivery Driv., Whsemen & Hlprs., 566 P.2d 1078 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).

R.P.T. of Aspen, Inc. v. Innovative Commc'ns, Inc., 917 P.2d 340 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(3)(a) — 2 cases

Harper Hofer & Assocs., LLC v. Nw. Direct Mktg., Inc., 412 P.3d 659 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).

Wright v. Goldstein (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(3)(b) — 1 case

Harper Hofer & Assocs., LLC v. Nw. Direct Mktg., Inc., 412 P.3d 659 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(4) — 6 cases

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Dist. Court Ex Rel. City & Cnty. of Denver, 939 P.2d 1353 (Colo. 1997). “See § 13-22-204(4), 6A C.R.S. (1987). The UAA contemplates that some causes of action may be severable from those which must be arbitrated.”

Mountain Plains Constructors, Inc. v. Torrez, 785 P.2d 928 (Colo. 1990). “When an order compelling arbitration is issued pursuant to section 13-22-204, 6A C.R.S. (1986), the proper procedure is to stay the action pending completion of the arbitration process.”

Sandefer v. Dist. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver, 635 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1981). “The respondent court determined that the agreement to arbitrate was valid with respect to the common law claims and “pursuant to § 13-22-204(4), C.R.S. 1973, if such claims are severable from Plaintiff’s [petitioner’s] Securities Act claim, proceedings herein should be stayed…”

Lawrence Street Partners, Ltd. v. Lawrence Street Venturers, 786 P.2d 508 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-204(5) — 1 case

Shorey v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 807 P.2d 1181 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).

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.