Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
November 15, 2010

No. 09SC20. Volunteers of America Colorado Branch v. Gardenswartz.
Collateral Source Rule—Contract Exception of CRS § 13-21-111.6—Health-Care Provider Discounts—Third-Party Insurance.

On certiorari review, the Supreme Court considered whether a successful tort plaintiff may recover damages for the full amount of medical expenses incurred, or may recover only the discounted amount paid by the plaintiff’s third-party insurance company. The Court held that under the collateral source rule, as codified by the contract exception of CRS §13-21-111.6, plaintiff may recover in full from defendant, because plaintiff was indemnified for the entire amount of medical services billed to him as a result of the health insurance contract he had purchased. The benefits from this policy, including the health-care provider discounts, are from a collateral source, and the tortfeasor may not use these independently procured benefits to reduce its liability for the reasonable value of the medical services rendered to plaintiff. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was affirmed.

No. 10SA106. People v. Vigil.
Self-Incrimination—Due Process—Suppression of Involuntary Statements—Suppression of Subsequent Confession.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order suppressing defendant’s confession. The Court held that two police officers violated the voluntariness requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using excessive physical force to coerce a confession from defendant during an unlawful arrest. The Court also held that contraband discovered as a result of the confession and unlawful arrest was appropriately suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. 

In addition, the Court upheld the trial court’s suppression of defendant’s subsequent confession. After his arrest, defendant received six hours of medical treatment. He was released into the custody of the same officers who had coerced his first confession, at which time defendant confessed again. The Court held that this second confession was infected by defendant’s earlier, coerced confession. Accordingly, the order was affirmed.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

Back