Summaries of Published Opinions and Petitions for Rehearing and Certiorari, 0711 COBJ, Vol. 40, No. 7 Pg. 177
| Position | Vol. 40, 7 [Page 177] |
Colorado Supreme Court
The following summaries are provided by the Colorado Supreme Court. The Colorado Bar Association (CBA) cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries. The Court’s Opinions are available on the CBA website: www.cobar.org (click on “Opinions/Rules/ Statutes”).
Published Opinions: May 2011
May 9, 2011
No. 09SC263. Allen v. Steele.
No. 09SC781. Kendrick v. Pippin.
No. 10SC83. Sanchez-Martinez v. People.
May 16, 2011
No. 09SC527. Bailey v. Lincoln General Insurance Company.
No. 09SC218. Weinstein v. People.
No. 09SC224. Oram v. People.
No. 10SA22. People v. Gonzalez-Zamora.
May 23, 2011
No. 09SC534. Qwest Services Corp. v. Blood.
No. 10SA89. In the Matter of Foster.
No. 09SC697. Citizens for Responsible Growth, Elbert County v. RCI Development Partners, Inc.
May 31, 2011
No. 10SA361. People v. Klinck, Jr.
No. 09SA133. Burlington Ditch, Reservoir and Land Co. v. Metro Wastewater Reclamation District.
No. 09SC652. Townsend v. People.
No. 09SC879. Day v. Johnson, MD.
No. 09SC627. Lucht’s Concrete Pumping, Inc. v. Horner.
May 9, 2011
No. 09SC263. Allen v. Steele. Negligent Misrepresentation—Prospective Client—Existence of Attorney–Client Relationship.
The Supreme Court held as a matter of law that an initial consultation with an attorney to discuss a potential civil lawsuit is not sufficient to meet the element of “guidance of others in their business transactions.” Because plaintiffs did not plead sufficient facts to demonstrate that an attorney provided them with false information as guidance in a business transaction, plaintiffs failed to state a claim of negligent misrepresentation for which relief can be granted.
The Court also held that a claim of negligent misrepresentation may not be founded on the requirement in Restatement ( Third) of The Law Governing Lawyers, § 15(1)(c) that attorneys owe a duty of reasonable care to prospective clients. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision that plaintiffs stated a claim of negligent misrepresentation for which relief can be granted.
No. 09SC781. Kendrick v. Pippin. Automobile Accident—Sudden or Unexpected Occurrence—Jury Instruction—Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment, holding that defendant failed to present competent evidence that she was confronted with a sudden or unexpected occurrence not of her own making. Defendant’s testimony demonstrated that she anticipated the roads would be slick and icy the morning she lost control of her vehicle. Consequently, she failed to present competent evidence that encountering icy road conditions was a sudden or unexpected occurrence.
The Court also held that plaintiff was not entitled to an instruction on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, because she failed to introduce sufficient evidence to establish that this accident was of the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence. In addition, the Court held that it is not juror misconduct for jurors to use their professional and educational background to inform their deliberations, provided that no legal content or factual information learned from outside the record is introduced during jury deliberations.
No. 10SC83. Sanchez-Martinez v. People. Knowing, Voluntary, and Intelligent Guilty Plea—Crim.P. 11 and 35(c)—Post-conviction Relief.
In this post-conviction proceeding originating as a Crim.P. 35(c)(2)(V) motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence, the Supreme Court determined that the county court acted within its discretion when it addressed the constitutionality of defendant’s guilty plea. Because the prosecution elicited testimony from defendant about the circumstances surrounding his guilty plea, and the court clearly indicated its inclination to vacate the plea as unconstitutional during the hearing, the Court concluded that the prosecution was on notice that the constitutionality of the plea was at issue. The Court also held that the record supported the county court’s findings and conclusion that defendant’s guilty plea was unconstitutional.
May 16, 2011
No. 09SC527. Bailey v. Lincoln General Insurance Company.
Criminal-Acts Exclusion—Public Policy—Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations—Ambiguous Policy Language—Deceptive Practices.
The court of appeals upheld the enforceability of a criminal-acts exclusion in a $1 million excess-insurance policy issued to an insured who rented a vehicle he later drove under the influence of methamphetamines, colliding into another vehicle, critically injuring one person and killing another. The Supreme Court affirmed.
The Court held that the criminal-acts exclusion prohibiting use of a rental car “in the commission of a crime that could be charged as a felony” does not violate public policy as applied to this case, where the insured pled guilty to five felonies involving the use of the car, including second-degree murder. Further, the insurer’s use of the criminal-acts exclusion was a proper exercise of its freedom to contract and provide coverage for damages caused by fortuitous events instead of for damages caused by intentional criminal acts.
The Court also held that, in this case, insertion of the criminal-acts exclusion does not violate the doctrine of reasonable expectations. In Colorado, this doctrine manifests itself in two ways: (1) where an ordinary, objectively reasonable person would, based on the language of the insurance policy, fail to understand that he or she is not entitled to the coverage at issue; and (2) where, because of circumstances attributable to an insurer, an ordinary, objectively reasonable insured would be deceived into believing that he or she is entitled to coverage, even though the insurer maintains he or she is not. In this case, from the perspective of an ordinary insured, the policy language is clear that using the rental car to commit a felonious criminal act may void coverage. Further, no circumstances attributable to the insurer can be said to have fostered objectively reasonable coverage expectations for intentional criminal acts.
No. 09SC218. Weinstein v. People. Criminal Law—Burglary.
In this companion case to Oram v. People, No. 09SC224 (Colo. May 16, 2011), the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The Court held that the common law bonding agent’s privilege does not exist in Colorado. Accordingly, Weinstein and his partner Oram could not rely on that privilege to enter a private residence in search of a bonded individual. The Court’s reasoning behind its decision, as well as its discussion of the matter of sufficiency of evidence, are discussed in detail in the Oram opinion.
No. 09SC224. Oram v. People. Criminal Law—Burglary.
This is a companion case to Weinstein v. People, No. 09SC218 (Colo. May 16, 2011), in which the Supreme Court discusses its affirmation of the judgment of the court of appeals in both cases. The Court held that the common...
To continue reading
Request your trial