Colorado’s Cooperation Legislation, enshrined in C.R.S. § 10-3-1118, was designed to guard policyholders from unfair denials based mostly on alleged failures to cooperate. It units a transparent authorized commonplace: If an insurer desires to depend on a non-cooperation protection, it should first comply with a collection of procedural steps, together with sending formal written discover, giving the insured time to reply, and permitting a possibility to remedy any alleged deficiencies. Failure to adjust to these statutory mandates means the insurer can’t use non-cooperation as a protection.
Jon Bukowski wrote a superb article about this regulation after its passage in Forfeiture of Advantages For Failure To Cooperate Stopped Beneath New Colorado Legislation.
In Simchat Torah Beit Midrash v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance coverage Firm, this statutory safeguard grew to become a focus of pre-trial litigation. Simchat, a nonprofit spiritual group, suffered intensive property injury after a historic windstorm. When it sought protection from its insurer, it encountered resistance. The insurance coverage firm argued that Simchat had hindered its investigation by refusing extra inspections, successfully failing to cooperate with the claims course of. Nonetheless, Colorado regulation doesn’t allow insurers to easily declare non-cooperation and deny protection—their obligations underneath the Code are strict, and on this case, the courtroom discovered that Philadelphia Indemnity had failed to fulfill them.
In granting Simchat’s movement, 1 the courtroom dominated that the insurer was barred from arguing non-cooperation at trial. The choice relied closely on Colorado precedent, which bolstered the requirement that insurers strictly adhere to the statutory course of earlier than invoking a non-cooperation protection. The courtroom discovered that Philadelphia Indemnity had not offered correct discover, nor had it given Simchat the mandatory alternative to remedy any alleged failure. Consequently, the insurer’s key protection was eradicated earlier than the trial even started—a big authorized victory for the policyholder.
So, what occurred with the case? This week, the trial went to the jury. The power of the Code was not sufficient to safe a win. Regardless of the insurer’s procedural failure, the jury in the end sided with Philadelphia Indemnity, delivering a zero verdict. This final result raises necessary questions in regards to the sensible impression of Colorado’s cooperation code. Whereas the statute supplies essential protections to insured events, stopping insurers from unfairly leveraging cooperation clauses to disclaim claims, it doesn’t assure a positive jury verdict.
The takeaway? Profitable a procedural battle over Colorado’s cooperation regulation doesn’t guarantee success in an insurance coverage dispute. Policyholders should nonetheless current compelling proof that their declare was wrongfully denied, and insurers, even when stripped of sure defenses, can nonetheless prevail in entrance of a jury. Colorado’s statutory safeguards present important due course of protections, however as this case illustrates, policyholders nonetheless should show the remainder of the case.
Thought For The Day
“You’ll be able to’t win all of them, however you possibly can strive.”
—Babe Ruth
1 Simchat Torah Beit Midrash v. Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co., No. 1:23-cv-00594 (D. Colo. Mar. 3, 2025).