Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108 (2026)

When a cause of action accrues

✓ 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 provided in subsection (12) of this section, a cause of action for injury to person, property, reputation, possession, relationship, or status shall be considered to accrue on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (2) A cause of action for wrongful death shall be considered to accrue on the date of death. (3) A cause of action for fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or deceit shall be considered to accrue on the date such fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or deceit is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (4) A cause of action for debt, obligation, money owed, or performance shall be considered to accrue on the date such debt, obligation, money owed, or performance becomes due. (5) A cause of action for balance due on an open account for goods or services shall accrue at the time of the last item of goods or services proved in such account. (6) A cause of action for breach of any express or implied contract, agreement, warranty, or trust shall be considered to accrue on the date the breach is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (7) A cause of action for wrongful possession of personal property, goods, or chattels shall accrue at the time the wrongful possession is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (8) A cause of action for losses or damages not otherwise enumerated in this article shall be deemed to accrue when the injury, loss, damage, or conduct giving rise to the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (9) A cause of action for penalties shall be deemed to accrue when the determination of overpayment or delinquency for which such penalties are assessed is no longer subject to appeal. (10) A cause of action for recovery of erroneous or excessive refunds of any tax administered under section 39-21-102, C.R.S., shall accrue on the date the department of revenue issues said refund. (11) A cause of action for a penalty for commission of a class A or a class B traffic infraction, as defined in section 42-4-1701, C.R.S., shall be deemed to accrue on the date the traffic infraction was committed. (11.5) A cause of action for a penalty for commission of a civil infraction, as described in section 16-2.3-101, is deemed to accrue on the date the civil infraction was committed. (12) A cause of action for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle accrues on the date that both the existence of the injury or damage and the cause of the injury or damage are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence. (13) A cause of action by the public employees' retirement association against an employer for unpaid contributions shall accrue on the date the nonpayment of contributions is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. This subsection (13) shall apply to causes of action as provided in section 24-51-402 (2), C.R.S.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 699, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (10) added, p. 568, § 6, effective July 1; (11) added, p. 1495, § 3, effective July 1. L. 94: (1) amended and (12) added, p. 2826, § 4, effective July 1; (11) amended, p. 2550, § 35, effective January 1, 1995. L. 95: (13) added, p. 562, § 21, effective May 22. L. 2022: (11.5) added, (HB 22-1229), ch. 68, p. 340, § 8, effective March 1.

Editor's note: Section 47 of chapter 68 (HB 22-1229), Session Laws of Colorado 2022, provides that the act adding subsection (11.5) is effective March 1, 2022, but the governor did not approve the act until April 7, 2022.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 215 cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Brodeur v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brodeur v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 20× “Although this holding from Daugherty is correct, there is an earlier statement in that same opinion that is outdated on which Petitioner mistakenly relies.”

Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 274 P.3d 547 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 21× “The relevant legal inquiry under the statute of limitations is the date that the debt was made liquidated or determinable but rather the date that the debt accrued, which section 13-80-108, C.R.S. (2011), entitled "When a cause of action accrues," defines as the date that the…”

Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 CO 44 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 13× “§ 13-80-108, C.R.S. (2017). When establishing a statute of limitations, the legislature necessarily connects the statute of limitations to one of the dates of *1177 accrual laid out in section 13-80-108.”

Patterson v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 159 P.3d 634 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 30× “Section 13-80-108, C.R.S.2005, determines the date a ecause of action will accrue.”

Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “§ 13-80-108(1), C.R.S8.2011. 1. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations On appeal, Sterenbuch argues that his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations is not time-barred because, due to the contingent nature of the contracts with his former clients, he…”

Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 10× “§ 13-80-108(1), 6 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.). Jones argues that the word "injury" should be interpreted to mean physical injury, and, therefore, that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the accident.”

Fowler & Peth, Inc. v. Regan, 151 P.3d 1281 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 12× “See § 13-80-108(4), C.R.S. (2006) (stating that a cause of action for a debt or obligation accrues on the date the debt is due; see annotations to § 13-80-108(4) for tolling doctrines); § 13-80-108(6), C.”

Wagner v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 166 P.3d 304 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “" Section 13-80-108(6), C.R.S.2006. A cause of action for "losses or damages not enumerated in [title 13, article 80] shall be deemed to accrue when the injury, loss, damage, or conduct giving rise to the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered by the…”

Morrison v. Goff, 91 P.3d 1050 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 5× “To determine when an action accrues, the General Assembly has adopted a form of the “discovery rule,” which states that an action accrues “on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Patterson, 185 P.3d 811 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 6× “See § 13-80-108, C.R.S. (2007) ("When a cause of action accrues.”

Harmon v. Fred S. James & Co. of Colorado, 899 P.2d 258 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 13× “Section 13-80-108(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”

Elk River Assocs. v. Huskin, 691 P.2d 1148 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 6× “In granting defendants’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the trial court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply to toll the running of the statute of limitation, § 13-80-108, C.R.S., and therefore, plaintiffs’ claims of constructive fraud…”

Show all 215 citing cases →

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1) — 82 cases

Brodeur v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007). “Although this holding from Daugherty is correct, there is an earlier statement in that same opinion that is outdated on which Petitioner mistakenly relies.”

Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011). “§ 13-80-108(1), C.R.S8.2011. 1. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations On appeal, Sterenbuch argues that his claim for tortious interference with contractual relations is not time-barred because, due to the contingent nature of the contracts with his former clients, he…”

Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992). “§ 13-80-108(1), 6 C.R.S. (1986 Supp.). Jones argues that the word "injury" should be interpreted to mean physical injury, and, therefore, that the statute of limitations began to run on the date of the accident.”

Morrison v. Goff, 91 P.3d 1050 (Colo. 2004). “To determine when an action accrues, the General Assembly has adopted a form of the “discovery rule,” which states that an action accrues “on the date both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

Harmon v. Fred S. James & Co. of Colorado, 899 P.2d 258 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “Section 13-80-108(1), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1)(a) — 1 case

Hurtado v. Brady, 165 P.3d 871 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1)(b) — 2 cases

Stump v. Gates, 777 F. Supp. 808 (D. Colo. 1991).

Arvia v. Black, 722 F. Supp. 644 (D. Colo. 1989).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1)(k)(I) — 1 case

Alderton v. State, 17 P.3d 817 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(2) — 5 cases

Garcia v. Schneider Energy Servs., Inc., 287 P.3d 112 (Colo. 2012).

Rauschenberger v. Radetsky, 745 P.2d 640 (Colo. 1987).

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

Lynch v. CRC Indus., Inc. (D. Colo. 2020).

Edgefield Holdings, LLC v. Alpine Bank (D. Colo. 2025).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(3) — 14 cases

Chidester v. E. Gas & Fuel Assocs., 859 P.2d 222 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).

Martinez v. Nash Finch Co., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012).

Hansen v. Lederman, 759 P.2d 810 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).

Conrad v. The Educ. Resources Inst., 652 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Colo. 2009).

Putzier v. Ace Hardware Corp., 50 F. Supp. 3d 964 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(4) — 19 cases

Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer Cnty., Inc., 274 P.3d 547 (Colo. 2012). “The relevant legal inquiry under the statute of limitations is the date that the debt was made liquidated or determinable but rather the date that the debt accrued, which section 13-80-108, C.R.S. (2011), entitled "When a cause of action accrues," defines as the date that the…”

Patterson v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 159 P.3d 634 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 13-80-108, C.R.S.2005, determines the date a ecause of action will accrue.”

Fowler & Peth, Inc. v. Regan, 151 P.3d 1281 (Colo. 2007). “See § 13-80-108(4), C.R.S. (2006) (stating that a cause of action for a debt or obligation accrues on the date the debt is due; see annotations to § 13-80-108(4) for tolling doctrines); § 13-80-108(6), C.”

Indep. Bank v. Pandy, 383 P.3d 64 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).

Thurman v. Tafoya, 895 P.2d 1050 (Colo. 1995).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(5) — 1 case

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

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(6) — 29 cases

Wagner v. Grange Ins. Ass'n, 166 P.3d 304 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “" Section 13-80-108(6), C.R.S.2006. A cause of action for "losses or damages not enumerated in [title 13, article 80] shall be deemed to accrue when the injury, loss, damage, or conduct giving rise to the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered by the…”

Patterson v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 159 P.3d 634 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Section 13-80-108, C.R.S.2005, determines the date a ecause of action will accrue.”

Hersh Companies v. Highline Vill. Assocs., 30 P.3d 221 (Colo. 2001).

Patterson v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 240 P.3d 456 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(7) — 4 cases

McGee v. Hardina, 140 P.3d 165 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

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

Stjernholm v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 782 P.2d 810 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

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

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(8) — 15 cases

Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 2018 CO 44 (Colo. 2018). “§ 13-80-108, C.R.S. (2017). When establishing a statute of limitations, the legislature necessarily connects the statute of limitations to one of the dates of *1177 accrual laid out in section 13-80-108.”

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

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

Smll, L.L.C. v. Daly, 128 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

In Re the Marriage of Smith, 7 P.3d 1012 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(9) — 3 cases

Colorado, Div. of Cent. Servs., Cent. Collection Serv. v. O'Brien (In Re O'Brien), 110 B.R. 27 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1990).

Weatherill v. State Farm (Colo. Ct. App. 2026).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(b) — 1 case

McKinney v. Armco Recreational Prods., Inc., 419 F. Supp. 464 (D. Colo. 1976).

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(l)(a) — 2 cases

In Re Carter, 4 B.R. 692 (Bankr.D. Colo. 1980).

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

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(l)(b) — 5 cases

Riel v. Reed, 760 F. Supp. 852 (D. Colo. 1991).

Victoria Oil Co. v. Lancaster Corp., 587 F. Supp. 429 (D. Colo. 1984).

Dillingham v. Univ. of Colo., Bd. of Regents, 790 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Johnson v. Arnos, 624 F. Supp. 1067 (N.D. Ill. 1985).

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

— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(l)(c) — 1 case

DeFelice v. Johnson, 931 P.2d 548 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

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.