Chapter 3 - § 3.3 • NO RIGHT TO RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYABLE AS PIP BENEFITS (REPEALED)

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 3.3 • NO RIGHT TO RECOVERY OF AMOUNTS PAID OR PAYABLE AS PIP BENEFITS (REPEALED)

[The legislature's 2003 repeal of the No-Fault Act means that medical and rehabilitative expenses are now recoverable as damages from dollar one, regardless of whether such expenses have been paid through medical payments coverage in an automobile insurance policy, by a health insurance policy, or by another third-party payor, such as workers' compensation, Medicare, or Medicaid. See § 4.3 for a detailed discussion.]

The general rule under former C.R.S. § 10-4-713(1) was that a person who suffered bodily injury in a motor vehicle accident had no right to recover from an owner or operator of a motor vehicle any amounts paid or payable as PIP benefits. The purpose of this rule was to prevent double recovery of amounts already received as PIP benefits. Accordingly, former Colorado civil jury instruction 11:21 directed the jury to deduct any amounts the plaintiff was eligible to receive as PIP benefits from any award of damages for economic loss. Like the cases discussed in § 3.2, the cases reviewed below are still included in this book to highlight the differences between Colorado's former no-fault system and its current "tort" system.

§ 3.3.1—General Rule Precludes Recovery of PIP Benefits

Under C.R.S. § 10-4-713(1), a person entitled to direct PIP benefits was prohibited from recovering against the defendant owner or driver damages covered under PIP coverage. Camacho v. Daffern, 622 P.2d 610, 611 (Colo. App. 1981).

This case was negated by the repeal of the No-Fault Act. See § 4.3 for discussion.

In Camacho v. Daffern, 622 P.2d 610 (Colo. App. 1981), the plaintiff, Camacho, as conservator for his minor son, brought a garnishment action to recover $7,536.30 in previously paid PIP benefits that had been withheld by the defendant's insurer from a $25,000 personal injury settlement reached after the son was injured as a pedestrian by a vehicle driven by the defendant, Daffern. Although the settlement was for $25,000, the insurer asserted that it was entitled to a deduction for PIP benefits.

The settlement agreement was unusual. It provided that judgment was to be confessed in the amount of $25,000 and that Camacho could institute garnishment proceedings for any sums claimed to be due under Daffern's policy. When Camacho initiated garnishment proceedings, the trial court quashed the writ of garnishment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

...