Search



Not a CBA Member? Join Now!
Find A Lawyer Directory
Find A Lawyer Directory
STRATUM
Find A Lawyer Directory
Know Your Judge

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions
April 30, 2012

2012 CO 30. No. 10SC409. Sunahara, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage—Collateral Source—Evidence—Discovery.

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the trial court’s admission of evidence of the amount paid by a collateral source for a tort plaintiff’s medical expenses. The Court held that the common law pre-verdict evidentiary component of the collateral source doctrine prohibits the admission.

The Court upheld the court of appeals’ decision to affirm the trial court’s exclusion of respondent’s un-redacted claim file from discovery pursuant to Silva v. Basin Western Inc., 47 P.2d 1184, 1193 (Colo. 2002). The Court held that the liability assessments and fault evaluations underlying an insurance company’s reserves and settlement authority in an underinsured motorist action are not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence as required by C.R.C.P. 26(b)(1).

2012 CO 31. No. 10SC516. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Crossgrove.
Insurance—Collateral Source—Evidence.

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision to reverse the trial court’s admission of evidence of the amount paid by a collateral source for a tort plaintiff’s medical expenses. The Court held that the common law pre-verdict evidentiary component of the collateral source doctrine prohibits the admission.

2012 CO 32. No. 11SA51. In re Smith v. Jeppsen.
Insurance—Collateral Source—Evidence—Statutory Interpretation.

The Supreme Court held that CRS § 10-1-135(10)(a) codifies the common law pre-verdict component of the collateral source rule prohibiting the admission at trial of evidence of the amount paid by a tort plaintiff’s insurance company pursuant to the plaintiff’s medical expense coverage. The trial court correctly applied CRS § 10-1-135(10)(a) prospectively in this action to exclude from trial evidence of the amount paid by a collateral source. The Court therefore discharged the rule to show cause.

2012 COA 33. No. 11SA115. Colorado Office of Consumer Counsel v. Colorado Public Utilities Commission.
Basic Residential Telephone Service Regulation—Maximum Rate Setting.

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment, holding that the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regularly pursued its authority in setting maximum rates for basic residential telephone service pursuant to CRS § 40-15-502(3)(b). The PUC considered all of the statutorily mandated factors in setting the rates and there was substantial evidence supporting its decision.

Colorado Supreme Court Opinions

Back