(1) "Motor vehicle liability policy", as used in this article, means a policy of liability insurance issued by an insurance carrier authorized to transact business in this state to or for the benefit of the person named therein as insured, which policy shall meet the following requirements:
(a) The policy of liability insurance shall designate by explicit description or by appropriate reference all motor vehicles with respect to which coverage is thereby intended to be granted.
(b) The policy of liability insurance shall insure the person named therein and any other person using or responsible for the use of said motor vehicle with the express or implied permission of said insured.
(c) The policy of liability insurance shall insure every such person on account of the maintenance, use, or operation of the motor vehicle within the continental limits of the United States or Canada against loss from the liability imposed by law; for damages, including damages for care and loss of services arising from such maintenance, use, or operation to the extent and aggregate amount, exclusive of interest and costs, with respect to each such motor vehicle, in the amounts specified in section 42-7-103 (2).
(2) When an operator's policy of liability insurance is required, it shall insure the person named therein as insured against the liability imposed by law upon the insured for bodily injury to or death of any person or damage to property to the amounts and limits set forth in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section and growing out of the use or operation by the insured within the continental limits of the United States or Canada of any motor vehicle not owned by the insured.
(3) Any liability policy issued under this section need not cover any liability of the insured assumed by or imposed upon said insured under any workers' compensation law nor any liability for damage to property in charge of the insured or the insured's employees.
(4) Any such policy of liability insurance may grant any lawful coverage in excess of or in addition to the coverage specified in this section or contain any agreements, provisions, or stipulations not in conflict with the provisions of this article and not otherwise contrary to law.
(5) Any motor vehicle liability policy which by endorsement contains the provisions required under this section shall be sufficient proof of ability to respond in damages.
(6) The department may accept several policies of one or more such carriers which together meet the requirements of this section.
(7) Any binder pending the issuance of any policy of liability insurance, which binder contains or by reference includes the provisions under this section, shall be sufficient proof of ability to respond in damages.
Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2484, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
Kohl v. Union Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1986).
Kohl v. Union Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 28× “ROVIRA, Justice, dissenting: The issue presented in this case is whether, when an insured stands beside his parked vehicle and reaches into it to unload a firearm, the vehicle is in "use," within the meaning of that term as it is found in section 42-7-413, 17 C.R.S. (1984). The…”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995).
· cites it 16× “[6] Although this issue was not within our grant of certiorari, we consider it briefly here in order fully to resolve this case.”
Cung La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 830 P.2d 1007 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 12× “1986), we interpreted section 42-7-413(1)(c), 17 C.R.S. (1984), which provides the minimum level of coverage required for an automobile insurance liability policy.”
Sommermeyer v. Price, 603 P.2d 135 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 6× “1963, 153-7-2 and 3; 2 (2) the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury that a driver’s negligence may be imputed to the owner-passenger in a suit by the owner-passenger against the driver; and (3) because the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, section…”
McMichael v. Aetna Ins. Co., 878 P.2d 61 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “An accident occurs on account of the “use” of a motor vehicle, for purposes of defining the minimum level of coverage required under § 42-7-413(1)(c), C.R.S. (1993 Repl.Vol. 17), if the injury that forms the basis of the claim is causally related to a conceivable use of the…”
Price v. Sommermeyer, 584 P.2d 1220 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 2× “" Despite the fact that the bodily injury limit of Christine's liability insurance was $10,000 per person, the trial court entered judgment for $15,000, based on its interpretation of § 42-7-413(1)(c), C.R.S. 1973, of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act.”
Nesjan v. J & A Distrib., Inc., 2025 COA 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “1986) (concluding that the plaintiffs’ injuries arose out of a hunter’s use of a motor vehicle for the purposes of section 42-7-413(1)(c), C.R.S. 2025, when the hunter discharged a rifle from the vehicle that was “specially designed to perform on the rugged terrain often…”
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Heritage Drug, Ltd., 3 P.3d 461 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Defendants also contend that they were entitled to coverage as insureds because they were "responsible for the use" of the car within the meaning of § 42-7-413(1)(b), C.R.S.1999. We disagree.”
Canal Ins. Co. v. Nix, 7 P.3d 1038 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“However, we view the employee exclusion in § 42-7-413(8) as a specific indication of the General Assembly's intent that employee injuries be covered by the Workers' Compensation Act where it is applicable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(1)(b) — 1 case
Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Heritage Drug, Ltd., 3 P.3d 461 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“Defendants also contend that they were entitled to coverage as insureds because they were "responsible for the use" of the car within the meaning of § 42-7-413(1)(b), C.R.S.1999. We disagree.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(1)(c) — 6 cases
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995).
“[6] Although this issue was not within our grant of certiorari, we consider it briefly here in order fully to resolve this case.”
Cung La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 830 P.2d 1007 (Colo. 1992).
“1986), we interpreted section 42-7-413(1)(c), 17 C.R.S. (1984), which provides the minimum level of coverage required for an automobile insurance liability policy.”
McMichael v. Aetna Ins. Co., 878 P.2d 61 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“An accident occurs on account of the “use” of a motor vehicle, for purposes of defining the minimum level of coverage required under § 42-7-413(1)(c), C.R.S. (1993 Repl.Vol. 17), if the injury that forms the basis of the claim is causally related to a conceivable use of the…”
Price v. Sommermeyer, 584 P.2d 1220 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“" Despite the fact that the bodily injury limit of Christine's liability insurance was $10,000 per person, the trial court entered judgment for $15,000, based on its interpretation of § 42-7-413(1)(c), C.R.S. 1973, of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(1)(e) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(8) — 1 case
Canal Ins. Co. v. Nix, 7 P.3d 1038 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
“However, we view the employee exclusion in § 42-7-413(8) as a specific indication of the General Assembly's intent that employee injuries be covered by the Workers' Compensation Act where it is applicable.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(c) — 1 case
Kohl v. Union Ins. Co., 731 P.2d 134 (Colo. 1986).
“ROVIRA, Justice, dissenting: The issue presented in this case is whether, when an insured stands beside his parked vehicle and reaches into it to unload a firearm, the vehicle is in "use," within the meaning of that term as it is found in section 42-7-413, 17 C.R.S. (1984). The…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(l)(a) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-7-413(l)(c) — 4 cases
Cung La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co., 830 P.2d 1007 (Colo. 1992).
“1986), we interpreted section 42-7-413(1)(c), 17 C.R.S. (1984), which provides the minimum level of coverage required for an automobile insurance liability policy.”
Sommermeyer v. Price, 603 P.2d 135 (Colo. 1979).
“1963, 153-7-2 and 3; 2 (2) the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury that a driver’s negligence may be imputed to the owner-passenger in a suit by the owner-passenger against the driver; and (3) because the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, section…”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. McMichael, 906 P.2d 92 (Colo. 1995).
“[6] Although this issue was not within our grant of certiorari, we consider it briefly here in order fully to resolve this case.”
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.