Colorado Court of Appeals Opinions

June 13, 2019

06-13-2019

Read More..

2019 COA 87 No. 17CA2416, In re Marriage of January

The permanent orders in the parties’ dissolution of marriage required them to share their daughter’s tutoring expenses in proportion to their incomes. Father subsequently refused to pay his share of the daughter’s tutoring costs. Mother moved for remedial sanctions in the form of tutoring expenses and attorney fees. The magistrate found father in contempt and imposed sanctions consisting of the tutoring expenses and mother’s attorney fees incurred in connection with the contempt proceeding. Father objected to the attorney fees award and requested a hearing. The magistrate has not yet set a hearing or ruled on father’s objection. Father also petitioned for district court review of the contempt order. The district court adopted the magistrate’s order awarding the tutoring expenses to mother.

Father appealed the district court’s ruling. The parties were ordered to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of a final, appealable judgment. The Court of Appeals determined that CRCP 107(d)(2) allows a district court to award reasonable attorney fees as a remedial sanction. Thus, a contempt order is not final until the attorney fees portion of the remedial sanction has been resolved, and father appealed too soon.

The appeal was dismissed without prejudice.

Read More..

2019 COA 88 No. 18CA0748, Ryser v. Shelter Mutual Insurance

Babion owned a car. With Babion’s permission, Forster was driving the car with Ryser as a passenger. A one-car accident occurred and Ryser suffered serious injuries. When the accident occurred, Babion, Forster, and Ryser were Walmart employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. According to Ryser, Forster’s negligence caused his injuries.

Ryser received workers’ compensation benefits and obtained uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits under his own auto policy. Ryser also submitted a claim for UM/UIM benefits from Babion’s policy with Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. (Shelter). Shelter rejected the claim, and Ryser sued. Shelter moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled for Shelter based on co-employee immunity.

On appeal, Ryser contended that the trial court erred in finding that he was not entitled to UM/UIM benefits under Babion’s policy. The exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act of Colorado, and the related co-employee immunity rule, bar a person who was injured in the course and scope of employment by a co-employee’s negligence in driving a car from receiving UM/UIM benefits under an insurance policy maintained by another co-employee who owned the car. Therefore, Ryser was not legally entitled to recover damages from Forster and, as a result, cannot recover UM/UIM benefits from Babion. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Shelter on Ryser’s claim for UM/UIM benefits.

The judgment was affirmed.

Read More..