Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-206 (2024)

Validity of agreement to arbitrate

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except on a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.

(2) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(3) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.

(4) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders.

Source: L. 2004: Entire part R&RE, p. 1720, § 1, effective August 4.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-22-203 as it existed prior to 2004.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: JA Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
JA Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 18× “We hold that section 13-22-206 requires the trial court to resolve allegations of fraudulent inducement, like Walker's, that are directed specifically to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). · cites it 11× “§ 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2006). In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc .”
In re the Marriage of Roth, 2017 COA 45, 395 P.3d 1226. · cites it 4× “2010); see also § 13-22-206(1), C.R.S. 2016 (agreement to arbitrate is “valid, enforceable, and irrevocable”).”
Ingold v. AIMCO/Bluffs, L.L.C. Apts., 159 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 2× “May 29, 2007) (interpreting § 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2006)). 5 . The Ingolds treat their tort and CCPA claims together and make no distinction in their argument (which we ultimately reject) as to their non-arbitrability.”
Linzy v. Conifer Care Communities, 2020 COA 88, 469 P.3d 537. · cites it 4× “§ 13-22-206(1). ¶ 25 As the Missouri Supreme Court put it, for our purposes, “there are two types of arbitration agreements: (1) agreements in which the parties agree to arbitrate regardless of the availability of a named arbitrator, and (2) agreements in which the parties agree…”
E-21 Eng'g, Inc. v. Steve Stock & Assocs., Inc., 252 P.3d 36 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Arbitration agreements are governed by the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, see-tions 13-22-201 to -230, C.”
Est. of Grimm v. Evans, 251 P.3d 574 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Even when aimed at the entire contract, the defense must be resolved by a court (and not an arbitrator) because it denies that "an agreement to arbitrate exists," under section 13-22-206(@). Cf. Spahr, 330 F.3d at 1273 (under the FAA, the trial court properly decided whether a…”
BRM Constr., Inc. v. Marais Gaylord, L.L.C., 181 P.3d 283 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “Although the former version of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act applies in this case, the official Committee note to § 6 of the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000, from which the current § 13-22-206 is derived, states that this provision is "intended to incorporate the holdings…”
Taubman Cherry Creek Shopping Ctr., LLC. v. Neiman-marcus Grp., Inc., 251 P.3d 1091 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “2d at 1361; see § 13-22-206(2). Certainly, parties may incorporate by reference AAA rules by expressly providing that those rules will govern any dispute within the seope of their arbitration agreement.”
In re Title, Ballot Title, Submission Cl., 184 P.3d 52 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 3× “" Under Colorado's Uniform Arbitration Act, section 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2007), parties may enter into a voluntary agreement for binding arbitration that is nevertheless subject to limited judicial review under section 13-22-223.”
Braata, Inc. v. Oneida Cold Storage Co. LLP., 251 P.3d 584 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Thus, to the extent that the district court concluded that the arbiter decides whether parties have met their contractually agreed-upon conditions precedent to arbitration, including agreements as to notice, it was correct.”
Robert J. Herrera v. Santangelo Law Offices, P.C., 520 P.3d 698 (Colo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “”); § 13-22-206(1) (“An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-206(1): 4 cases
In re the Marriage of Roth, 2017 COA 45, 395 P.3d 1226. “2010); see also § 13-22-206(1), C.R.S. 2016 (agreement to arbitrate is “valid, enforceable, and irrevocable”).”
Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). “§ 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2006). In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc .”
Linzy v. Conifer Care Communities, 2020 COA 88, 469 P.3d 537. “§ 13-22-206(1). ¶ 25 As the Missouri Supreme Court put it, for our purposes, “there are two types of arbitration agreements: (1) agreements in which the parties agree to arbitrate regardless of the availability of a named arbitrator, and (2) agreements in which the parties agree…”
Robert J. Herrera v. Santangelo Law Offices, P.C., 520 P.3d 698 (Colo. Ct. App. 2022). “”); § 13-22-206(1) (“An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable .”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-206(2): 6 cases
JA Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). “We hold that section 13-22-206 requires the trial court to resolve allegations of fraudulent inducement, like Walker's, that are directed specifically to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Linzy v. Conifer Care Communities, 2020 COA 88, 469 P.3d 537. “§ 13-22-206(1). ¶ 25 As the Missouri Supreme Court put it, for our purposes, “there are two types of arbitration agreements: (1) agreements in which the parties agree to arbitrate regardless of the availability of a named arbitrator, and (2) agreements in which the parties agree…”
E-21 Eng'g, Inc. v. Steve Stock & Assocs., Inc., 252 P.3d 36 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Arbitration agreements are governed by the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act, see-tions 13-22-201 to -230, C.”
Taubman Cherry Creek Shopping Ctr., LLC. v. Neiman-marcus Grp., Inc., 251 P.3d 1091 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “2d at 1361; see § 13-22-206(2). Certainly, parties may incorporate by reference AAA rules by expressly providing that those rules will govern any dispute within the seope of their arbitration agreement.”
Robert J. Herrera v. Santangelo Law Offices, P.C., 520 P.3d 698 (Colo. Ct. App. 2022). “”); § 13-22-206(1) (“An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable .”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-206(3): 5 cases
Lane v. Urgitus, 145 P.3d 672 (Colo. 2006). “§ 13-22-206, C.R.S. (2006). In Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc .”
JA Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). “We hold that section 13-22-206 requires the trial court to resolve allegations of fraudulent inducement, like Walker's, that are directed specifically to an agreement to arbitrate.”
Harper Hofer & Assocs., LLC v. Nw. Direct Mktg., Inc., 412 P.3d 659 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
Aquarion AG v. Peakview Partners, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-02024 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2026).
Suez WTS Servs. USA, Inc. v. Aethon United BR LP, No. 1:20-cv-02129 (D. Colo. Oct. 19, 2020).
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-22-206(8): 4 cases
JA Walker Co. v. Cambria Corp., 159 P.3d 126 (Colo. 2007). “We hold that section 13-22-206 requires the trial court to resolve allegations of fraudulent inducement, like Walker's, that are directed specifically to an agreement to arbitrate.”
BRM Constr., Inc. v. Marais Gaylord, L.L.C., 181 P.3d 283 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Although the former version of the Colorado Uniform Arbitration Act applies in this case, the official Committee note to § 6 of the Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000, from which the current § 13-22-206 is derived, states that this provision is "intended to incorporate the holdings…”
Est. of Grimm v. Evans, 251 P.3d 574 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Even when aimed at the entire contract, the defense must be resolved by a court (and not an arbitrator) because it denies that "an agreement to arbitrate exists," under section 13-22-206(@). Cf. Spahr, 330 F.3d at 1273 (under the FAA, the trial court properly decided whether a…”
Braata, Inc. v. Oneida Cold Storage Co. LLP., 251 P.3d 584 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “Thus, to the extent that the district court concluded that the arbiter decides whether parties have met their contractually agreed-upon conditions precedent to arbitration, including agreements as to notice, it was correct.”
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.