Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-7-102 (2026)
Liability for violations - punitive damages
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In case any public utility does, causes to be done, or permits to be done any act, matter, or thing prohibited, forbidden, or declared to be unlawful, or omits to do any act, matter, or thing required to be done, either by the state constitution, any law of this state, or any order or decision of the commission, such public utility shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for all loss, damage, or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or omission was willful, the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages. An action to recover such loss, damage, or injury may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by any corporation or person.
(2) No recovery as provided in this section shall in any manner affect the recovery by the state of the penalties provided in articles 1 to 7 of this title.
Source: L. 13: p. 503, § 58. C.L. § 2967. CSA: C. 137, § 58. CRS 53: § 115-7-2. C.R.S. 1963: § 115-7-2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1976–2017 · leading case: City of Boulder v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
City of Boulder v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 824a-3(g) (1999) and § 40-7-102, C.R.S.1998. As to defendant PUC, plaintiffs seek mandamus to compel it to enforce PURPA, the FERC regulations, and its own rules; adopt a proper methodology for determining avoided costs under those rules; and generally monitor PSCo’s…”
Archibold v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2002). “In addition, a corporation or person may have an action for damages as provided by section 40-7-102, 11 C.R.S. (2002); such actions do not preclude the commission from pursuing the remedies available to it, see section 40-7-102(2), 11 C.”
City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., 143 P.3d 1076 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Aspen argues that the PUC private remedy statutes, §§ 40-7-102(1) and 40-7-103(1), C.R.S.2005, support a CCPA suit.”
Shoemaker v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 559 P.2d 721 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976). “Nor do we find this conclusion in any way repugnant to § 40-7-102, C.R.S.1973, which provides for awards of exemplary damages against public utilities only when in violation of specific prohibitions.”
O'Bryant v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 778 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1989). “The Public Utilities Law further provides that “[i]f the court finds that the act or omission was willful, the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages.”
O'BRYANT v. PUC of State of Colo., 778 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1989). “The Public Utilities Law further provides that "[i]f the court finds that the act or omission was willful, the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages.”
Dev. Recovery Co., LLC v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 2017 COA 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “DRC’s Allegations in Support of Claims For Relief ¶7 DRC filed the complaint against Xcel alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of section 40-7-102, C.R.S. 2016, related to an unspecified…”
Fawn Lake Ranch Co. v. K.C. Elec. Ass'n, 700 P.2d 564 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “Plaintiffs complaint sought to invoke the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to § 40-7-102, C.R.S., and alleged a violation of Public Utilities Commission Rule 13(b).”
Atl. Richfield Co. v. Dist. Court, Montrose Cnty., 794 P.2d 253 (Colo. 1990). “Further, the court held that there was no evidence of any illegal actions by Colorado-Ute, thus no liability could be imposed for damages under section 40-7-102, 17 C.R.S. (1984). Finally, the court held that in the event it was reversed on the jurisdictional issue, the summary…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-7-102(1) — 5 cases
City of Boulder v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 996 P.2d 198 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “§ 824a-3(g) (1999) and § 40-7-102, C.R.S.1998. As to defendant PUC, plaintiffs seek mandamus to compel it to enforce PURPA, the FERC regulations, and its own rules; adopt a proper methodology for determining avoided costs under those rules; and generally monitor PSCo’s…”
City of Aspen v. Kinder Morgan, Inc., 143 P.3d 1076 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Aspen argues that the PUC private remedy statutes, §§ 40-7-102(1) and 40-7-103(1), C.R.S.2005, support a CCPA suit.”
O'Bryant v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 778 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1989). “The Public Utilities Law further provides that “[i]f the court finds that the act or omission was willful, the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages.”
O'BRYANT v. PUC of State of Colo., 778 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1989). “The Public Utilities Law further provides that "[i]f the court finds that the act or omission was willful, the court, in addition to the actual damages, may award exemplary damages.”
Dev. Recovery Co., LLC v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 2017 COA 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). “DRC’s Allegations in Support of Claims For Relief ¶7 DRC filed the complaint against Xcel alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and violation of section 40-7-102, C.R.S. 2016, related to an unspecified…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-7-102(2) — 1 case
Archibold v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2002). “In addition, a corporation or person may have an action for damages as provided by section 40-7-102, 11 C.R.S. (2002); such actions do not preclude the commission from pursuing the remedies available to it, see section 40-7-102(2), 11 C.”
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.