Case Background

The Colorado Supreme Court’s potential ruling in Nicola v. Grand Junction[i] carries significant implications for insurance defense strategies, particularly in the context of mitigating the risk of Nuclear Verdicts®. This case stemmed from a tragic accident in 2018 when plaintiff John Nicola’s daughter, Danielle, was struck by a vehicle while crossing a street in Grand Junction, Colorado, allegedly due to malfunctioning streetlights. Danielle passed away 19 days later.[ii] In the aftermath of the tragic accident, plaintiff pursued a wrongful death claim against the driver of the vehicle that struck his daughter.[iii] That lawsuit was then settled and the case was voluntarily dismissed.[iv]

Plaintiff then proceeded to a file a second lawsuit against Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction for the allegedly malfunctioning streetlights.[v] In his lawsuit against Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction he alleged the defendants’ negligence in maintaining the streetlights was a contributing factor in his daughter’s death.[vi] The District Court initially dismissed both the wrongful death and survival action claims against Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction.[vii] However, the Colorado Court of Appeals delivered a split decision. It upheld the dismissal of the wrongful death claim, reinforcing the “one civil action” rule that restricts plaintiffs in Colorado to a single lawsuit for a wrongful death.[viii] The Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal of the survival action, offering a different interpretation of the applicable statute of limitations.[ix]

The case then made its way to the Colorado Supreme Court on two questions[x]:

• Whether, in reversing dismissal of a survival claim based on the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding C.R.S. § 13-81-103(1)(b)[xi] applies only when a person under a disability (1) had a legal representative and (2) died after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, but less than two years after the legal representative was appointed and thereby instead applying C.R.S. § 13-80-112[xii]; and,
• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in concluding the statute of limitations for a personal representative to file a survival action under C.R.S. 13-80-112 is two years from the date of death rather than two years from the date of the incident as required under C.R.S. §§ 13-20-101(2)[xiii] and 13-80-108(1).

Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction’s Argument

Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction have centered their defense on a strict interpretation of C.R.S. § 13-81-103(1)(b), which states, “[I]f the person under disability dies before the termination of his disability and before the expiration of the period of limitation in paragraph (a) of this subsection (1) and the right is one which survives to the executor or administrator of a decedent, such executor or administrator shall take action within one year after the death of such person under disability.”[xiv] Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction argued this provision unequivocally establishes a one-year deadline for filing survival actions when a person under a disability, like Danielle Nicola, passes away. The interpretation, they asserted, overrides any other potentially longer statute of limitations.[xv] Citing the clear language of the statute, particularly the phrase, “. . . shall take action within one year after the death,” (emphasis added) they contended that plaintiff’s lawsuit, filed beyond this one-year window, was undeniably time-barred.[xvi]

Potential Conclusions

Based on the details available, it seems likely the Colorado Supreme Court will uphold the strict application of one-year statute of limitations for survival actions, as outlined in C.R.S. §13-81-103(1)(b). The Court of Appeals’ decision to allow a longer timeframe appears to contradict the plain language of the statute, which explicitly states such an action must be taken “within one year after the death.” Furthermore, the case emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and avoiding delays in litigation. This suggests that the Colorado Supreme Court should prioritize the clear language of the statute and the legislative intent behind it, even in cases involving tragic circumstances and individuals under disability. Therefore, it is possible the Colorado Supreme Court will reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and rule in favor of Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction, dismissing the survival action as time-barred.

Impact on the Insurance Industry

If the Colorado Supreme Court rules in favor of Xcel Energy and the City of Grand Junction in this case, it would have several significant impacts on the insurance defense industry in Colorado. A ruling in favor of the defendants would reinforce the importance of strict adherence to statutes of limitations in personal injury and wrongful death cases, even in situations involving individuals with disabilities. This would emphasize the need for timely filing of claims and discourage any attempts to circumvent deadlines based on extenuating circumstances. If the one-year limitation period is upheld, this could potentially reduce the exposure of insurers to claims brought long after incidents occur. This could lead to lower claim payouts and decreased litigation costs for insurance companies preventing Nuclear Verdicts®, especially as Colorado’s damage caps will begin to erode beginning January 1, 2025. A clear ruling by the Supreme Court of Colorado could also provide more certainty and predictability in litigation timelines leading insurers to better manage their resources and anticipate potential liabilities.

Takeaways

The pending Colorado Supreme Court decision in Nicola v. Grand Junction has the potential to serve as a stark reminder of the importance of statutes of limitations. The Colorado Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling could set a precedent for the strict enforcement of statutes of limitations, even in emotionally charged cases involving individuals with disabilities. This could translate to greater predictability in litigation timelines and reduced risk of excessive payouts (including Nuclear Verdicts® driven by emotional appeals), ultimately benefitting insurers and their clients.

Keep Reading

From the Kitchen to the Courtroom: Bargains, Bread and Briefs Arizona Business Owners Owe a Duty of Reasonable Safety to Invitees, Unreasonably Dangerous Condition or Not Not So Peachy Lately: Georgia Attacking Nuclear Verdicts® with New Tort Reform Laws Cracking the Code: Demystifying the Legal Lingo in Insurance Defense Day in the Life of a Litigator: Keith Bostwick It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Collaboration Is Key to Preparation in the Weeks Before Trial But I Didn’t Mean to Do It … Be Bold, Be Bright, But Be Brief…

More by this author

Privacy vs. Relevance: How Deep Can Discovery Go in Colorado Lien Cases? When Roads Diverge in the Wood: the Power of Risk in Building a Fulfilling Career and Stopping Nuclear Verdicts® “Building” a Better Plan for Design Professional Expert Witnesses: Theater Patrons Trapped in Elevators After Architect’s Failure Colorado’s Statute of Limitations: No Exceptions for Delayed Grief Clearing the Air: The Legal Fight Over Absence Points at American Airlines United Defense: Collaborating to Combat Nuclear Verdicts® NO WAY, PRO SE! The Consequences of Abusing the Judicial System as a Pro Se Litigant in Colorado You Poetic, Noble Land Mermaid: A Celebration of “Galentine’s Day” The Covid-19 Naughty or Nice Coverage List

Sources

[i] Nicola v. City of Grand Junction, 544 P.3d 120 (2023).

[ii] Ashby, Charles. “High court to hear local appeal in case of grieving father.” The Daily Sentinel, Aug 22, 2024. https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/high-court-to-hear-local-appeal-in-case-of-grieving-father/article_061007b2-5f2b-11ef-a4ac-8b3e575eaa47.html

[iii]  Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Nicola v. City of Grand Junction, 544 P.3d 120, 123 (2023).

[viii] Id. at 133

[ix] Id.

[x] Nicola v. Grand Junction, Granted Petition for Writ of Certiorari (August 19, 2024).

[xi] C.R.S.A § 13-81-103(1)(b).

[xii] C.R.S.A. § 13-80-112

[xiii] C.R.S.A § 13-101(2)

[xiv] Nicola v. Grand Junction, 544 P.3d at 128-129.

[xv] Id.

[xvi] Id.