Colorado Supreme Court
City & County of Denver v. Bd. of County Comm’rs of Adams County—Statute of limitations; Breach of contract accrual—2024CO5 (01/29/2024). The Supreme Court clarified when a breach-of-contract claim accrues for purposes of the applicable three-year statute of limitations. It held that a breach-of-contract claim accrues at the time the breach is, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been, discovered. It found that the court of appeals erred when it applied an accrual rule based on when a plaintiff becomes aware of damages and possesses certainty of harm and incentive to sue, holding that that rule is inconsistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the language of Colorado’s accrual statute [C.R.S. § 13-80-108(6)], the relevant case law, and the public policy considerations that underpin statutes of limitations.
GHP Horwath, P.C. v. Kazazian—Abuse of right of access to courts; Enjoinder from filing litigation—2024CO8 (02/20/2024). The Supreme Court enjoined Nina H. Kazazian, acting individually or on behalf of another entity, from proceeding pro se as a proponent of a claim (e.g., as plaintiff, third-party claimant, cross-claimant, or counterclaimant) in any present or future litigation in the state courts of Colorado. Acknowledging that every person has an undisputed right of access to Colorado courts, the Court also held that the right may not be abused and must yield to the principle that that right and justice should be administered without sale, denial, or delay. From this principal, the Court held that when a pro se litigant hampers the efficient administration of justice to an intolerable degree, it has a duty to stop the abuse with an injunction.
Colorado Court of Appeals
Wolven v. del Rosario Velez—Medical liens; Impairment—2024COA8 (01/19/24). Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to exclude evidence of the plaintiff’s health-care provider lien from trial, arguing that because the lien was amended to comply with the statute shortly before trial, it did not meet the statutory requirements. The Court of Appeals concluded, as a matter of first impression, that so long as a health-care provider lien agreement conforms with the statute when it is created or amended, it must be excluded from trial per section C.R.S. § 38-27.5-103(2). The Court also held that the trial court’s admission of the plaintiff’s expert testimony concerning an “impairment rating,” as calculated using the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (5th ed. 2001), was proper, and it agrees with another division of this Court’s decision to admit such evidence in Herrera v. Lerma, 2018 COA 141. The division also upheld the trial court’s denial of a request for a limiting instruction informing the jury how impairment ratings differ in personal injury and worker’s compensation cases.
Stone Group Holdings v Ellison—Prejudgment interest—2024 COA 10 (01/25/24). The appellate court in Grand County Custom Homebuilding, LLC v. Bell, 148 P.3d 398 (Colo. App. 2006) had left the question unresolved of when an order for prejudgment interest is appealable. In this case, the Court of Appeals held that an order is appealable when the amount is calculable on the face of the order. Thus, an order is appealable when the order granting prejudgment interest is reduced to a sum certain and is therefore final. Prejudgment interest is facially calculable when the order states (1) the amount of the judgment; (2) the prejudgment interest rate; and (3) the date when the interest began accruing.
Schnelle v. Cantafio—Denial of summary judgment motion does not mean claim defeats malicious prosecution claim—(02/15/24). In this interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals decided whether, in considering the denial of a defense motion for summary judgment or a directed verdict, the denial establishes probable cause for bringing a claim as a matter of law, thus automatically defeating a later malicious prosecution claim. The Court concluded that the denial does not establish a presumption of probable cause but, instead, is merely a factor that may be considered in determining whether there was probable cause to bring the claims in the previous case.
