Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101 (2026)

General limitation of actions - three years

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: (a) All contract actions, including personal contracts and actions under the "Uniform Commercial Code", except as otherwise provided in section 13-80-103.5; (b) Repealed. (c) All actions for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or deceit except those in section 13-80-102 (1)(j); (d) and (e) Repealed. (f) All actions for breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty; (g) All claims under the "Uniform Consumer Credit Code", except section 5-5-201 (5), C.R.S.; (h) All actions of replevin or for taking, detaining, or converting goods or chattels, except as otherwise provided in section 13-80-103.5; (i) All actions under the "Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act", article 7 of title 42, C.R.S.; (j) All actions under part 6 of article 4 of title 10, C.R.S.; (k) All actions accruing outside this state if the limitation of actions of the place where the cause of action accrued is greater than that of this state; (l) All actions of debt under section 40-30-102, C.R.S.; (m) All actions for recovery of erroneous or excessive refunds of any tax under section 39-21-102, C.R.S.; (n) (I) All tort actions for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle including all actions pursuant to paragraph (j) of this subsection (1). (II) The provisions of this paragraph (n) do not apply to any action for strict liability, absolute liability, or failure to instruct or warn governed by the provisions of section 13-80-102 (1)(b) or section 13-80-106. (o) and (p) Repealed.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 695, § 1, effective July 1; (1)(b) repealed and (1)(c) amended, pp. 708, 707, §§ 4, 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (1)(a) and (1)(c) amended and (1)(l) and (1)(m) added, p. 567, §1, effective July 1; (1)(c) amended, p. 538, § 10, effective July 1; (1)(e) repealed, p. 600, § 38, effective July 10. L. 91: (1)(a) amended, p. 270, § 7, effective July 1. L. 92: (1)(d) repealed, p. 244, § 3, effective July 1. L. 94: (1)(n) added, p. 2824, § 1, effective July 1. L. 99: (1)(o) added, p. 215, § 3, effective July 1; (1)(p) added, p. 593, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2000: (1)(g) amended, p. 1872, § 108, effective August 2; (1)(c) amended, p. 3, § 4, effective July 1, 2001. L. 2003: (1)(j) amended, p. 1572, § 8, effective July 1. L. 2011: (1)(o)(I), (1)(o)(II)(C), and (1)(p) repealed, (HB 11-1303), ch. 264, p. 1153, § 21, effective August 10. L. 2013: (1)(o)(II) repealed, (HB 13-1300), ch. 316, p. 1674, § 34, effective August 7. L. 2017: (1)(c) amended, (SB 17-294), ch. 264, p. 1390, § 27, effective May 25.

Editor's note: The provisions of this section are similar to provisions of several former sections as they existed prior to 1986. For a detailed comparison, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index. Cross references: For the "Uniform Commercial Code", see title 4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 171 cases (47 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 59× “Jones argues that the term "under" is plain and unambiguous in the context of section 13-80-101 and means that only first party claims by insureds against insurers are claims arising under the Act and are governed by its statute of limitations.”

Dawson v. Reider, 872 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 55× “Section 13-80-101 provides in pertinent part: (1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: .”

Indep. Bank v. Pandy, 383 P.3d 64 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 17× “12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(l)(k), C.R.S.2014. In a written order, the district court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations in section…”

Portercare Adventist Health Sys. v. Lego, 286 P.3d 525 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 7× “He argued that Porter's action was for unjust enrichment with recovery in quantum meruit and was therefore barred by the general three-year statute of limitations for contract actions codified at section 13-80-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (2011). The trial court denied the motion.”

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Gonzales, 17 P.3d 137 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 31× “-Standard of Review Meyer and Burlington argue that the General Assembly intended the three-year statute of limitations, section 13-80-101({1)(n)(I), to apply only when the alleged tortfeasor was using or operating a motor vehicle.”

Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Voss, 890 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 15× “1, §§ 13-80-101 to -103, 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 695, 695-97.”

Oaster v. Robertson, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 11× “§ 13-80-101; 2. Fraud — three years. Col.”

Nesjan v. J & A Distrib., Inc., 2025 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 42× “¶ 21 Sections 13-80-101 and -102 were repealed and reenacted together in 1986.”

Kovac v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 401 P.3d 112 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “, shall be commenced or demanded by arbitration demand within three years after the cause of action accrues; except that, if the underlying bodily injury liability claim against the underinsured motorist is preserved by commencing an action against the underin-sured motorist or…”

Colburn v. Kopit, 59 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Section 13-80-101(1)(f), C.R.S 2001. An action for negli-genee or outrageous conduct must be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues.”

Pandy v. Indep. Bank, 2016 CO 49 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 8× “Pandy in this case, and its action was not barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 13-80-101(1)(k). I. Facts and Procedural History 14.”

Barnett v. Surefire Med., Inc., 342 F. Supp. 3d 1167 (D. Colo. 2018). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff responds that (1) defendants have failed to show that Colorado law applies rather than the law of Maryland or Georgia; (2) plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue in 2013 because Arepally had assigned all rights in the patent to Surefire and therefore obtained no…”

Show all 171 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1) — 22 cases

Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992). “Jones argues that the term "under" is plain and unambiguous in the context of section 13-80-101 and means that only first party claims by insureds against insurers are claims arising under the Act and are governed by its statute of limitations.”

Dawson v. Reider, 872 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1994). “Section 13-80-101 provides in pertinent part: (1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: .”

Jackson v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 258 P.3d 328 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Patterson, 185 P.3d 811 (Colo. 2008).

Murry v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 489 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(a) — 27 cases

Portercare Adventist Health Sys. v. Lego, 286 P.3d 525 (Colo. 2012). “He argued that Porter's action was for unjust enrichment with recovery in quantum meruit and was therefore barred by the general three-year statute of limitations for contract actions codified at section 13-80-101(1)(a), C.R.S. (2011). The trial court denied the motion.”

Sandoval v. Archdiocese of Denver, 8 P.3d 598 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Hannon Law Firm, LLC v. Melat, Pressman & Higbie, LLP, 293 P.3d 55 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).

Grant Fam. Farms, Inc. v. Colorado Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 155 P.3d 537 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).

Neuromonitoring Assocs. v. Centura Health Corp., 351 P.3d 486 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(c) — 7 cases

Bolinger v. Neal, 259 P.3d 1259 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

Topa v. Frechin (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).

Marco's Franchising, LLC v. Marco's Coal Fired Pizza, Inc. (D. Colo. 2019).

Sulley v. Taylor (D. Colo. 2020).

EBH v. O'Hanlon (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(f) — 5 cases

Colburn v. Kopit, 59 P.3d 295 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “Section 13-80-101(1)(f), C.R.S 2001. An action for negli-genee or outrageous conduct must be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues.”

Polk v. Hergert Land & Cattle Co., 5 P.3d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 916 P.2d 643 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Van Schaack v. Van Schaack Holdings, Ltd., 856 P.2d 15 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Prospect Dev. Co. v. Holland & Knight, LLP, 433 P.3d 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(h) — 7 cases

In Re Est. of Krotiuk, 12 P.3d 302 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Curtis v. Counce, 32 P.3d 585 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Commissiong v. Ctr. at Lincoln, LLC, The (D. Colo. 2025).

Est. of Krotiuk v. Figlus, 12 P.3d 302 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Marken v. Knez (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(j) — 10 cases

Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Voss, 890 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1995). “1, §§ 13-80-101 to -103, 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 695, 695-97.”

Murry v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., 194 P.3d 489 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).

Wagner v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 166 P.3d 304 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(k) — 2 cases

Pandy v. Indep. Bank, 2016 CO 49 (Colo. 2016). “Pandy in this case, and its action was not barred by the statute of limitations set forth in section 13-80-101(1)(k). I. Facts and Procedural History 14.”

Lester L. Sumrall v. LeSea, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 2024).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(n) — 4 cases

City & Cnty. of Denver v. Gonzales, 17 P.3d 137 (Colo. 2001). “-Standard of Review Meyer and Burlington argue that the General Assembly intended the three-year statute of limitations, section 13-80-101({1)(n)(I), to apply only when the alleged tortfeasor was using or operating a motor vehicle.”

Pham v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 296 P.3d 1038 (Colo. 2013).

Rider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 205 P.3d 519 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

Helm v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co. (D. Colo. 2024).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(1) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(I) — 8 cases

Nesjan v. J & A Distrib., Inc., 2025 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). “¶ 21 Sections 13-80-101 and -102 were repealed and reenacted together in 1986.”

Currier v. Sutherland, 218 P.3d 709 (Colo. 2009).

Sulca v. Allstate Ins. Co., 77 P.3d 897 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).

Farm v. Steul, 2020 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(T) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(1)(n)(l) — 1 case

Jesus Dominguez v. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. & Steve Adame (D. Colo. 2026).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(c) — 5 cases

In Re Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (D. Colo. 2005).

Larsen v. Munoz (In Re Munoz), 111 B.R. 928 (D. Colo. 1990).

Kearns Motor Co. v. Cimino (In Re Dreiling), 233 B.R. 848 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1999).

Hill v. Walden (In re walden), 207 B.R. 1 (D. Colo. 1997).

Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(e) — 1 case

Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(f) — 3 cases

Pound v. Fletter, 39 P.3d 1241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).

Est. of Jon L. Bogue, The v. Adams (D. Colo. 2019).

Frisco Motel P'ship v. H.S.M. Corp., 791 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(j) — 1 case

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(a) — 22 cases

Rotenberg v. Richards, 899 P.2d 365 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Berg v. State Bd. of Agric., 919 P.2d 254 (Colo. 1996).

Fishburn v. City of Colorado Springs, 919 P.2d 847 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996).

Int'l Network, Inc. v. Woodard, 2017 COA 44 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(a)(2008) — 1 case

Island View Residential Treatment Ctr. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., 548 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2008).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(c) — 5 cases

William M. Rogers v. Joseph P. Nacchio, 241 F. App'x 602 (11th Cir. 2007).

Rosania v. Haligas (In Re Dry Wall Supply, Inc.), 111 B.R. 933 (D. Colo. 1990).

Dubin v. Miller, 132 F.R.D. 269 (D. Colo. 1990).

Robinson v. Lynmar Racquet Club, Inc., 851 P.2d 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 839 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Colo. 1993).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(e) — 1 case

In Re the Adoption of P.H.A., 899 P.2d 345 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(f) — 3 cases

Smith Ex Rel. Boston v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (D. Ariz. 2001).

Sender v. Porter (In Re Porter McLeod, Inc.), 231 B.R. 786 (D. Colo. 1999).

Johnston v. Cigna Corp., 916 P.2d 643 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(i) — 1 case

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 839 F. Supp. 1457 (D. Colo. 1993).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(j) — 7 cases

Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Voss, 890 P.2d 663 (Colo. 1995). “1, §§ 13-80-101 to -103, 1986 Colo.Sess.Laws 695, 695-97.”

Reider v. Dawson, 856 P.2d 31 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).

Cox v. Jones, 802 P.2d 1125 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Dove v. Delgado, 808 P.2d 1270 (Colo. 1991).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(k) — 1 case

Indep. Bank v. Pandy, 383 P.3d 64 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the complaint was barred by the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(l)(k), C.R.S.2014. In a written order, the district court concluded that the three-year statute of limitations in section…”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(n) — 2 cases

Rider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 205 P.3d 519 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101(l)(n)(I) — 4 cases

Aberkalns v. Blake, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (D. Colo. 2009).

Gonzales v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 998 P.2d 51 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Trigg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 129 P.3d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

Oversole v. Manci, 216 P.3d 621 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

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.