Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-44-107 (2026)

Right of insurer to examine books of employer

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any insurance carrier operating under the workers' compensation act may apply to the commissioner of insurance for permission to examine any of the books, payrolls, or other documents of any employer insured by such carrier or of any contractor, subcontractor, lessee, sublessee, or person covered by the employer's compensation insurance to determine the amount of wage expenditure of such employer or of any contractor, subcontractor, lessee, sublessee, or person during any period that such insureds were insured by the insurance carrier. The commissioner of insurance may grant such carrier authority in writing to make the investigation or may appoint any agents of the division of insurance to conduct the investigation.

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 522, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-44-108 as it existed prior to 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1980–1994 · leading case: United States Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “On two grounds, claimant argues that Beard should be subject to penalties pursuant to § 8-44-107(1). His initial ground is that Beard failed to “secure” compensation pursuant to § 8-44-101 and therefore failed to comply with the insurance provisions of the Act.”
United Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sciarrota, 885 P.2d 273 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “The court concluded that the 50 percent penalty allowed by § 8-44-107(1) was personal to injured employees and their dependents and could not be collected by a third party such as PIP carrier.”
Eachus v. Cooper, 738 P.2d 383 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “Both awards included a fifty percent increase in the normal compensation rate because employer did not carry workmen’s compensation insurance pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).”
Melnick v. Indus. Com'n of State of Colo., 656 P.2d 1318 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “Melnick was aware of the injury and was liable for a daily penalty authorized by § 8-44-107, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Cum. Supp.), for failure to file the notice of contest or admission within twenty-five days after becoming aware of the injury which is required by § 8-53-102, C.”
Whale Commc'ns v. Death of Osborn, 759 P.2d 848 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Moreover, since it is undisputed that employer did not carry workmen’s compensation insurance at the time of the injury, such benefits shall be increased by fifty percent pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 3B).”
Curtiss v. GSX Corp. of Colorado, 774 P.2d 873 (Colo. 1989). “§ 8-44-107(1), 3B C.R.S. (1986). Section 8-48-101(1), 3B C.”
Am. Exp. v. Indus. Com'n, 712 P.2d 1132 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “), permitting the imposition of fines for various acts “for which no penalty has been specifically provided.”
Butland v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 754 P.2d 422 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “This reduction was offset by a penalty for noninsurance imposed on petitioners under § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 3B).”
Passaretti v. Indus. Comm'n, 711 P.2d 1285 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “In this proceeding, Hilda Passaretti (claimant) seeks to enforce a final order of the Industrial Commission which held that Helen’s Mobile Catering (employer) was uninsured, and awarded claimant a 50 percent penalty pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.). Claimant…”
Evergreen Inv. & Realty Co. v. Baca, 666 P.2d 166 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Baker v. Redystick Prods. Co., 674 P.2d 1011 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “2d 161 (1966); § 8-44-107, C.R.S.1973. Election to pursue either of these remedies bars recovery under the other.”
First Nat'l Bank of Colorado Springs v. Long, 616 P.2d 180 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “It further found that decedent had not taken out workmen’s compensation insurance, and therefore would be subject to a 50% penalty as specified in § 8-44-107, C.R.S.1973. The referee then stated in his order “that the liability to this claimant from the estate must be determined…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-44-107(1) — 9 cases
United States Fid. & Guar., Inc. v. Kourlis, 868 P.2d 1158 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “On two grounds, claimant argues that Beard should be subject to penalties pursuant to § 8-44-107(1). His initial ground is that Beard failed to “secure” compensation pursuant to § 8-44-101 and therefore failed to comply with the insurance provisions of the Act.”
United Sec. Ins. Co. v. Sciarrota, 885 P.2d 273 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “The court concluded that the 50 percent penalty allowed by § 8-44-107(1) was personal to injured employees and their dependents and could not be collected by a third party such as PIP carrier.”
Eachus v. Cooper, 738 P.2d 383 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “Both awards included a fifty percent increase in the normal compensation rate because employer did not carry workmen’s compensation insurance pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).”
Whale Commc'ns v. Death of Osborn, 759 P.2d 848 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “Moreover, since it is undisputed that employer did not carry workmen’s compensation insurance at the time of the injury, such benefits shall be increased by fifty percent pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol. 3B).”
Curtiss v. GSX Corp. of Colorado, 774 P.2d 873 (Colo. 1989). “§ 8-44-107(1), 3B C.R.S. (1986). Section 8-48-101(1), 3B C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-44-107(3) — 2 cases
Passaretti v. Indus. Comm'n, 711 P.2d 1285 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). “In this proceeding, Hilda Passaretti (claimant) seeks to enforce a final order of the Industrial Commission which held that Helen’s Mobile Catering (employer) was uninsured, and awarded claimant a 50 percent penalty pursuant to § 8-44-107(1), C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.). Claimant…”
First Nat'l Bank of Colorado Springs v. Long, 616 P.2d 180 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). “It further found that decedent had not taken out workmen’s compensation insurance, and therefore would be subject to a 50% penalty as specified in § 8-44-107, C.R.S.1973. The referee then stated in his order “that the liability to this claimant from the estate must be determined…”
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.