Chapter 3 - § 3.1 • INTRODUCTION

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 3.1 • INTRODUCTION

Colorado's former No-Fault Act, C.R.S. §§ 10-4-701, et seq. (Repealed), limited the circumstances in which an action for damages for bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident could be brought. Under the former No-Fault Act, before such an action could be maintained, at least one of five threshold requirements set forth in C.R.S. § 10-4-714(1) had to be satisfied. In addition, former C.R.S. § 10-4-713 limited the damages recoverable in such an action. Under the former No-Fault Act, the plaintiff could not recover as damages amounts that were payable as PIP benefits, including medical and rehabilitation expenses up to $100,000, lost wages up to $400 per week, and essential services up to $25 per day. As a result, under the former No-Fault Act, many cases were resolved at trial in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff could not present sufficient evidence to satisfy the threshold requirement. Moreover, under the former No-Fault Act, the amount of damages awarded to successful plaintiffs in motor vehicle accident cases was often quite low because medical and rehabilitation expenses up to $100,000 were not recoverable as damages.

The No-Fault Act was the law in Colorado for nearly 30 years. Since the repeal of the No-Fault Act in 2003, a new "tort" system has emerged. Medical and rehabilitation expenses are now recoverable from dollar one, provided that the plaintiff can prove that such expenses were necessitated by injuries caused by the defendant's negligence. Furthermore, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4, under current law, the plaintiff can present evidence of, and claim as damages, the full face amount of medical and rehabilitation expenses incurred, but the defendant is precluded from trying to limit such damages by showing that a lesser amount was paid by the plaintiff's health insurer or another third-party payor, such as a health insurer, Medicare, workers' compensation, or Medicaid. For the present at least, the "billed versus paid" dispute has been...