(1) Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any land surveyor brought to recover damages resulting from any alleged negligent or defective land survey shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-101 after the person bringing the action either discovered or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and concern should have discovered the negligence or defect which gave rise to such action, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than ten years after the completion of the survey upon which such action is based.
(2) For purposes of this section, "land survey" or "improvement survey" means any survey conducted by or under the direction and control of a land surveyor licensed pursuant to the provisions of part 3 of article 120 of title 12 and includes but is not limited to professional land surveying, as defined in section 12-120-302 (5). Nothing in this section shall be construed as extending the period or periods provided by the laws of Colorado or by agreement of the parties for bringing any action, nor shall this section be construed as creating any claim for relief not existing or recognized on or before July 1, 1979.
(3) (a) The limitations set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply to any survey unless the documentary evidence of such land survey contains, clearly depicted thereon, the following statement:
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon.
(b) If any survey is performed that does not require documentation, the limitations set forth in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall nevertheless apply if, not more than ninety days after the completion of the survey, written notice of the provisions of this article is provided to all persons holding an interest in the property upon which such survey is conducted.
Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 698, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (2) amended, p. 1577, § 19, effective July 10. L. 2006: (3)(b) amended, p. 339, § 3, effective August 7. L. 2019:
(2) amended, (HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1668, § 77, effective October 1.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 13-80-127.3 as it existed prior to 1986.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases, 1975–2019 · leading case:
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984).
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 100× “[1] Each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr.”
Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 102× “Mastro pleaded the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations contained in section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”
Smith v. Boyett, 908 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 101× “Smith denied the allegations and raised the affirmative defense *511 of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.).”
Comstock v. Collier, 737 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 60× “1984), this court concluded that, in view of provisions of the United States and Colorado Constitutions, a claim alleging injury caused by a physician's negligent misdiagnosis must also be deemed exempt from the repose provision of section 13-80-105. The plurality opinion…”
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 72× “Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
State v. Young, 665 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 16× “Section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973. The statute was amended in 1977 to require the institution of the action within two years after discovery of the injury.”
Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 655 P.2d 822 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 6× “This court has previously upheld similar statutes of repose such as section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973, which limits the period in which malpractice actions may be brought against physicians.”
Rauschenberger v. Radetsky, 745 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 6× “[3] The medical malpractice statute of limitation in effect during the relevant time period, § 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.), allowed the filing of an action "within two years after the person bringing the action discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence and…”
Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 4× “That case also involved the interpretation of the word "injury" under section 13-80-105(1), 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.”
Crownover v. Gleichman, 574 P.2d 497 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 6× “As a result of this confusion the two-year malpractice statute of limitations which commenced to run against the wife's claim for malpractice is held to have barred the husband's separate claim for wrongful death about four months after the death claim came into existence.”
Brodie v. Mastro, 638 P.2d 800 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 14× “Mastro, which was adopted by the trial court, that § 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.), is controlling when, in pertinent part, it states: "No person shall be permitted to maintain an action, whether such action *801 sounds in tort or contract, to recover damages .”
Southard ex rel. Southard v. Miles, 714 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 52× “Southard claims that summary judgment was improperly granted because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is “a person under disability” so as to suspend the running of the statutory periods of limitation and repose in § 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.),…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(1) — 19 cases
Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984).
“Mastro pleaded the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations contained in section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”
Comstock v. Collier, 737 P.2d 845 (Colo. 1987).
“1984), this court concluded that, in view of provisions of the United States and Colorado Constitutions, a claim alleging injury caused by a physician's negligent misdiagnosis must also be deemed exempt from the repose provision of section 13-80-105. The plurality opinion…”
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984).
“[1] Each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr.”
State v. Young, 665 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1983).
“Section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973. The statute was amended in 1977 to require the institution of the action within two years after discovery of the injury.”
Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).
“That case also involved the interpretation of the word "injury" under section 13-80-105(1), 6 C.R.S. (1983 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(1)(a) — 6 cases
Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984).
“Mastro pleaded the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations contained in section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”
Smith v. Boyett, 908 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1995).
“Smith denied the allegations and raised the affirmative defense *511 of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.).”
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984).
“[1] Each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr.”
Brodie v. Mastro, 638 P.2d 800 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
“Mastro, which was adopted by the trial court, that § 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.), is controlling when, in pertinent part, it states: "No person shall be permitted to maintain an action, whether such action *801 sounds in tort or contract, to recover damages .”
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
“Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(1)(b) — 1 case
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
“Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(2) — 4 cases
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
“Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
Southard ex rel. Southard v. Miles, 714 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1986).
“Southard claims that summary judgment was improperly granted because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is “a person under disability” so as to suspend the running of the statutory periods of limitation and repose in § 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.),…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(3) — 5 cases
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
“Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
Southard ex rel. Southard v. Miles, 714 P.2d 891 (Colo. 1986).
“Southard claims that summary judgment was improperly granted because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is “a person under disability” so as to suspend the running of the statutory periods of limitation and repose in § 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.),…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(8)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(l)(a) — 8 cases
Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162 (Colo. 1984).
“Mastro pleaded the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations contained in section 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1983 Supp.”
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984).
“[1] Each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr.”
Smith v. Boyett, 908 P.2d 508 (Colo. 1995).
“Smith denied the allegations and raised the affirmative defense *511 of the statute of limitations pursuant to section 13-80-105, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.).”
Brodie v. Mastro, 638 P.2d 800 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
“Mastro, which was adopted by the trial court, that § 13-80-105, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.), is controlling when, in pertinent part, it states: "No person shall be permitted to maintain an action, whether such action *801 sounds in tort or contract, to recover damages .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-105(l)(b) — 2 cases
Tenney v. Flaxer, 727 P.2d 1079 (Colo. 1986).
“Under the 1977 amendments to the Colorado medical negligence statute of limitations, Section 13-80-105, [6] C.R.S. [1985 Supp.”
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.