Fifteen Years of Colorado Legislative Tort Reform: Where Are We Now?
Jurisdiction | Colorado,United States |
Citation | Vol. 30 No. 1 Pg. 5 |
Pages | 5 |
Publication year | 2001 |
2001, February, Pg. 5. Fifteen Years of Colorado Legislative Tort Reform: Where Are We Now?
Vol. 30, No. 1, Pg. 1
The Colorado Lawyer
February 2001
Vol. 30, No. 2 [Page 5]
February 2001
Vol. 30, No. 2 [Page 5]
Articles
Fifteen Years of Colorado Legislative Tort Reform: Where Are
We Now?
by John G. Salmon
by John G. Salmon
Fifteen years ago, the Colorado legislature began to enact a
sweeping series of new laws and amendments restricting the
rights of injured persons to recover for their injuries
described generally as "tort reform." Such
legislative enactments have continued in varying degrees
since that time
In 1986, it was claimed by the insurance industry and a
coalition of business groups that the need for such new
restrictive laws stemmed from personal injury claims that
were purportedly increasing at a drastic rate in both
frequency and magnitude. The immediate motivating factors for
enacting tort reform were a near "doubling" of
insurance rates in 1985 and 1986 and that certain risks were
becoming uninsurable
It has never been proven that personal injury litigation was
the actual cause of the insurance rate increases and
difficulties with insurability. A great deal of material has
been published since then stating that the principal
motivating factor for the 1985-86 "crisis" was an
unanticipated reduction in income to insurance companies due
to severely reduced interest rates on investments,
coincidentally occurring at the same time.
Before 1985, insurance companies fiercely competed with each
other for business to generate premiums in order to invest at
high rates of return (over 15 percent per year). When
interest rates plummeted under the Reagan administration,
insurance company income decreased drastically and, according
to some writers, gave rise to the need to create
justification for doubling insurance rates in 1985 and 1986.
Insurance companies spent millions of dollars on advertising
to convince the public that these rate increases and capacity
difficulties were due to upwardly spiraling personal injury
damage awards.
Regardless of the actual cause of the "crisis,"
tort reform began in earnest in 1986 and has continued since
that time. In the fifteen years since tort reform became part
of Colorado's approach as a purported cure for
ever-increasing insurance costs, the Colorado legislature has
enacted a number of laws restricting injured persons'
rights to recover fair compensation from responsible parties.
Statutes of limitations have been shortened; damage caps have
been instituted on personal injury claims; workers'
rights under workers' compensation laws have been either
eliminated or drastically reduced; and various new or partial
immunities have been established for governmental agencies
and non-governmental special interest groups, such as those
connected with skiing, equine activities, baseball, and even
llama raising.
This article does not attempt an exhaustive analysis of each
piece of legislation that has been enacted in the last
fifteen years. Instead, its focus is on providing an overview
of the principal categories of tort reform as a basis for
understanding what now exists and to stimulate debate over
whether there should be a change. At issue is whether the
state of Colorado believes the ultimate cost to injured
persons whose compensation is now often significantly limited
by tort reform legislation is justified and whether tort
reform's avowed purpose of lowering insurance rates has
come to pass. Considering that Colorado has enacted the first
and most extensive tort reform legislation in the country, it
may be time for the Colorado legislature to make a thorough
analysis of the effects of such legislation on the state and
to determine the direction it needs to go from here.
ABOLISHMENT OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
Pro Rata Liability
In 1986, the Colorado legislature abolished joint and several
liability and replaced it with "pro rata
liability." As such, no defendant may be held liable for
an amount greater than that represented by the degree or
percentage of the negligence or fault attributable to such
defendant that produced the claimed injury, death, damage, or
loss.1 The relative degrees of fault of the joint tortfeasors
must be used to determine their pro rata shares.2 In 1987,
the legislature reinstated joint liability for those limited
situations where a conspiracy exists; that is, joint
liability will be imposed when two or more people consciously
conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to
commit a tortuous act.3
Non-Party Designation
John G. Salmon, Englewood, is senior shareholder with the
firm of Salmon, Lampert & Clor, P.C.-(303) 771-9900. He
has been in practice in Colorado for twenty-eight years,
emphasizing personal injury and insurance law.
In a civil action, the fact-finder may consider the degree or
percentage of fault of a person who is not a party to the
action in determining the degree or percentage of negligence
or fault of those parties to the action. While a finding of
fault of a non-party will result in a reduction of damages
awarded to the plaintiff proportional to the percentage
attributed to the non-party, it will not constitute
presumptive or conclusive findings for purposes of a prior or
subsequent action involving that non-party. The only
requirements for designation of a non-party are that either
the plaintiff must have entered into a settlement agreement
with the non-party or notice must be given by the defendant
that the non-party is partially or wholly responsible for the
claimed injury.4 In 1990, this provision was modified such
that if the designated non-party is a health care
professional, and the defendant alleges professional
malpractice, the non-party designation must include a
certificate of review.5
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk must be considered by the trier of fact in
apportioning negligence. Persons assume the risk of injury or
damage if they voluntarily or unreasonably expose themselves
to injury or damage with knowledge or appreciation of the
danger and risk involved. Juries must be instructed on the
elements of assumption of risk.6
STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS
Legislative changes in 1986 included significant
modifications to statutes of limitations. Most limitations
that had previously been set at between six months and one
year were set at one year, two-year limitations remained the
same, some three- and six-year limitations were shortened to
two years, and a very few were set at three years. Actions
for most intentional torts, such as assault, battery, false
imprisonment, libel and slander, fraud, misrepresentation, or
deceit, as well as those actions against police, sheriffs,
firefighters, or other law enforcement officials were limited
by a one-year statute of limitations.7
Most actions based in negligence, including trespass,
outrageous conduct, strict liability, breach of warranty,
failure to warn, and all actions against any health care
facility or professional were limited to two years. This
category also includes any action for wrongful death, actions
against governmental entities or personnel, actions based on
a federal statute where no statutory limitations are
otherwise prescribed, and an important "catch-all"
provision that includes "all other actions not included
in another category."8
Actions based on the Uniform Commercial Code;9 actions for
restraint of trade; breach of trust or fiduciary duty; breach
of contract; and civil actions for takings, replevin, or
conversion were set at three years.10 Additionally, any
action brought under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations
Act,11 Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act,12 and
Uniform Consumer Credit Code13 are now included in the
three-year statute of limitations. Finally, actions based on
secured debts or property encumbered by a security instrument
must be brought within six years.14
Statutes of repose, which set absolute time limits on actions
brought regardless of when the cause of action accrues, were
set at six years for persons in the construction trades;15
ten years for actions against land surveyors;16 and seven
years for manufacturers, sellers, or lessors of new
manufacturing equipment.17 Two exceptions also were included
in this 1986 legislation. For construction claims, if the
cause of action arises in the fifth or sixth year, an
additional two years can be tacked on, potentially extending
the limit to eight years.18 For manufacturers, the statute of
repose does not apply if the equipment is misrepresented,
material facts are fraudulently concealed and the equipment
causes injury, defects are hidden, or prolonged exposure to
hazardous materials causes injury.19
Further modifications to statutes of limitations had been
made in 1987, 1988, and 1994. First, actions brought under
the Real Estate Recovery Fund Act20 were included in the
one-year statute of limitations' category. Actions for
breach of warranty and recovery of erroneous or excessive
refunds of tax payments were then moved to the three-year
category.21 Actions to recover liquidated debts or
unliquidated determinable amounts were moved to the six-year
category. The year 1987 also brought a reinstatement of a
three-year statute of repose for actions against health care
providers or facilities.22 However, a statute of limitations
or statute of repose is still tolled for persons under legal
disability until such time as the disability is removed or a
legal guardian is appointed.23
Minor changes were made concerning uninsured and underinsured
motorist claims in 1994. Currently, any uninsured motorist
insurance claim must be filed within three years after the
cause of action...
To continue reading
Request your trial