|
|
Legal Highlights In
Colorado Insurance Law
|
|
|
|
|
 From the law firm of
Montgomery, Kolodny, Amatuzio & Dusbabek, LLP
Denver | Fort Collins | Cheyenne | |
|
|
"APIP" Reformation Action Held Time-Barred
Insured Cannot Bring "APIP" claims
 Cases seeking to reform auto policies to provide added personal injury protection benefits ("APIP") continue to be filed, even though the no-fault law was repealed July 1, 2003. This month, the Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment for the insurer on statute of limitations grounds on one such claim, holding that the insured knew or should have known that she had a claim for APIP benefits when she received her final "Basic PIP" payment, or when the Brennan decision (recognizing the policy reformation in APIP cases) was announced. The insured argued that she did not become aware of a possible APIP claim until her new attorney so advised her. The Court stated that the insured need only know the facts essential to her claim to start the statute running, not the legal theory upon which a claim might be based. The Court stressed that the insured had counsel when the relevant events occurred, and held that an attorney is presumed to know the law and that this knowledge is imputed to the client. Murry v. GuideOne Specialty Mut. Ins. Co., Court of Appeals No. 07CA1150, --- P.3d --- (Announced September 4, 2008). Click here to view the Decision.
|
| Contractor Statute of Repose Trumps 90-Day Contribution Statute
Court Enforces Policy To Limit Construction Disputes
 The Colorado Court of Appeals has ruled that the statutory 90-day period after settlement or judgment to bring contribution and indemnity claims afforded by C.R.S. 13-80-104(1)(b)(I), does not extend the six-year statute of repose for claims against builders, contractors, architects and other construction defendants set by 13-80-104(1)(a). In a complex case of statutory construction, the repose period, after which no suit can be maintained, was not intended to be "tolled" by the 90-day provision, the Court held. The 90-day contribution period was to extend only the two-year statute of limitations against design and construction defendants to a date up to 90 days following resolution of a construction defect case. Nothing in the legislative history suggested to the Court that the 90-day provision was intended to "toll" the statute of repose. Thermo Development, Inc. v. Central Masonry Corp., No. 07CA1190, announced September 18, 2008. Thus, parties with potential contribution or indemnity claims in construction defect cases must assert those claims against any design or construction professional falling within the statute before the statute of repose expires, regardless whether the suit against the defendant has been resolved by that time. This opinion is not yet "final" pending a possible petition for rehearing or for review by the Colorado Supreme Court. Click here to view the Decision. |
|
Restoration Contractor Indicted
Insurance Fraud Claimed By Feds
 A Federal criminal indictment issued on September 9 charging Disaster Restoration, Inc. ("DRI") an emergency/restoration contractor, and ten of its current or former owners and employees with 60 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy, extortion and other charges. The indictment alleges that DRI routinely overcharged property insurers for subcontractor work, by inducing subs to submit inflated bids, tendering them to carriers for reimbursement, then only paying a reduced fee to the subcontractor. The investigation was jointly conducted by the U.S. Attorney, the Office of the U.S. Postal Inspector, and the National Insurance Crime Bureau ("NICB"). Click here to view the Indictment. |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
The Colorado Division of Insurance ("DOI") has announced that it "recovered" $7 million in benefits for insurance consumers in the first half of 2008. A new "complaint index" is touted by the DOI as allowing consumers to compare "the good, the bad and the ugly" among Colorado-licensed insurers. The Plaintiff's bar is well aware of this database, and uses it to compile complaint volume information in support of bad faith claims.
House Bill 08-1389, and related Emergency Regulations issued by the Colorado Division of Insurance, impose filing and prior approval requirements upon health care insurers for rate increases, at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the increase. The new law, and the emergency regulations [08-E-04, 08-E-05, and regulations 4-2-11 and 4-4-1] apply to proposed rate increases to be effective on or after January 1, 2009.
Kristi Lush joined MKAD as an associate lawyer in the Denver office beginning September 8, 2008. Since graduating from law school in 2006, Kristi worked as a judicial law clerk at the Federal Bankruptcy Court in California, and then as a judicial law clerk at the Missouri Supreme Court. | |
|
|
|
| About Our
Law Firm
Our lawyers specialize in insurance law and litigation. We provide opinions on insurance coverage for insurers and, as necessary, litigate coverage, "bad faith" and disputes between insurers. Our firm represents insureds in liability actions and communicates closely with the claim representative to facilitate favorable and early resolutions. Whether our client is an insurance company or an insured, we understand insurance. | | |
|
|
DENVER:
1775 Sherman St., #2100, Denver, CO 80203
FORT COLLINS:
2625 Redwing Rd., #200, Fort Collins, CO 80526
CHEYENNE:
109 E. 17th St., #23, Cheyenne, WY 82001
Main Telephone: 303-592-6600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
