Every insurance carrier authorized to transact business
in this state, including Pinnacol Assurance, which insures employers against liability for
compensation under the provisions of articles 40 to 47 of this title, shall notify any employer
insured by the carrier or Pinnacol Assurance, and any agent or representative of such employer,
if applicable, by certified mail of any cancellation of such employer's insurance coverage. Such
notice shall be sent at least thirty days prior to the effective date of the cancellation of the
insurance. However, if the cancellation is based on one or more of the following reasons, then
such notice may be sent less than thirty days prior to the effective date of the cancellation of the
insurance: Fraud, material misrepresentation, nonpayment of premium, or any other reason
approved by the commissioner of insurance.
Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 523, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2002: Entire section
amended, p. 1886, § 39, effective July 1. L. 2003: Entire section amended, p. 838, § 3, effective
August 6.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 8-44-114 as it existed prior to 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Pinnacol Assurance v. Hoff, 2016 CO 53 (Colo. 2016).
· cites it 41× “(2014), to create a public policy mandate that invalidates the “disclaimers and exculpatory language” in a certificate of insurance to require that notice of cancellation of a policy be provided to certificate holders where section 8-44-110, C.R.S. (2014), does not require such…”
Hoff v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 383 P.3d 50 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Instead, Hoff contends that she is a beneficiary of specific promises (external to the Pinnacol policy) made by Pinnacol or Bradley, its agent, to Alliance (and thus indirectly to her) that there was a workers’ compensation policy issued to MDR that was in force on the dates…”
FIRST COMP v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 252 P.3d 1221 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 9× “First Comp, which insured the decedent's statutory employer, contends that because Pinnacol Assurance (Pinnacol), the insurer for the decedent's direct employer, failed to properly cancel the direct employer's workers' compensation insurance in accordance with section 8-44-110,…”
Fischer v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. (D. Colo. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-44-110 (2002). The employer in EZ Building argued that the insurance policy cancellation was ineffective because the insurer failed to send notice via certified mail to all of the required parties.”
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.