Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Roberts v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2005-05-02 · cited 7×
In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiffs sought additional uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under multiple automobile policies after an accident, arguing that anti-stacking provisions in the policies were inconspicuous, ambiguous, or inapplicable because the policies were issued by two different but affiliated companies. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the provisions enforceable and limiting total recovery to the highest single-policy limit. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the anti-stacking language was clearly expressed, consistently referenced throughout the policies, and not in conflict with other terms, thereby precluding stacking of benefits across the policies. The court rejected arguments based on reasonable expectations and placement of the provisions, concluding that plaintiffs were fully compensated by payment of the motorcycle policy limit.
business & regulatory
People v. Shawn
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2004-09-09 · cited 19×
The case involved a defendant convicted of felony menacing after an altercation in a store parking lot where he scratched and pinched the victim, stated he was HIV positive, and attempted to bite the victim while fleeing from a suspected theft. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove his statement was a threat, that he possessed a deadly weapon, or that he used one. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to show the defendant's conduct was intended to threaten the victim with imminent serious bodily injury through the use of his HIV status as a deadly weapon. The focus was on the defendant's intent rather than the victim's actual fear, and the actions of scratching and attempting to bite demonstrated the use of a deadly weapon.
criminal law
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. Price
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2003-11-17 · cited 7×
The case involved a dispute over whether an oral settlement agreement reached during mediation in a tort action for the death of Macy Joseph Price, Jr., in a plane crash could be enforced by the court. The trial court enforced the alleged oral agreement, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Colorado's Dispute Resolution Act requires a signed written agreement for court enforcement of mediated settlements. The court's reasoning centered on the plain language of section 13-22-308(1), which outlines specific steps including reducing the agreement to writing, signing it, presenting it to the court, and obtaining court approval, and the confidentiality provisions that bar using mediation communications to prove an oral agreement.
proceduretorts & liability
Mosley v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2003-10-09 · cited 6×
This case involved a workers' compensation claim by Sherry Mosley for permanent impairment benefits following a 1998 work-related car accident, where the parties disputed the final whole-person impairment rating after multiple medical examinations and two administrative orders. The Industrial Claim Appeals Office affirmed a 31% impairment rating but denied Mosley's request for attorney fees. On review, the court held that the employer had waived its challenge to the non-thoracic portion of the rating by failing to contest it in the first petition for review, that the administrative law judge properly addressed the thoracic spine impairment based on the evidence presented, and that the denial of attorney fees required reconsideration because the employer had raised a new argument in its second petition. The court affirmed the impairment determination, set aside the fee denial, and remanded for further proceedings on fees.
labor & employmentprocedure
Ainscough v. Owens
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2003-09-22 · cited 1×
In Ainscough v. Owens, union members and organizations challenged the constitutionality of Governor Bill Owens's 2001 executive order and a related payroll deduction policy that ended the practice of state agencies automatically deducting union dues from employees' paychecks and forwarding them to unions. The plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their right to free speech, conflicted with state statutes on payroll deductions, and breached administrative procedures. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not show injury to a legally protected right, as no Colorado constitutional or statutory provision guarantees state-implemented deductions for union dues. The court further noted that the executive order expressed only a policy preference without legal compulsion and caused no direct injury.
labor & employmentfree speech
People v. Stovall
Colorado Court of Appeals · 2003-07-03 · cited 7×
In People v. Stovall, the trial court denied restitution after a defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and other charges and received a sentence of life without parole plus 896 years, reasoning that ordering restitution would be futile given the defendant's lack of assets and the resources required. The People appealed, arguing the denial violated the restitution statute. The appellate court reversed, holding that under § 18-1.3-603(1), C.R.S.2002, a court may deny restitution only upon a specific finding that no victim suffered pecuniary loss, which was not made here. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language and legislative declarations require restitution whenever a pecuniary loss exists, regardless of the defendant's ability to pay or the costs of collection. The case was remanded for reconsideration consistent with the statute.
criminal law