Colorado Civil Justice League applauds a unanimous decision by the Colorado Supreme Court which will benefit both employers and employees.

The decision in Lucht's Concrete vs. Horner (Case No. 09SC627) reversed a Court of Appeals ruling that held that continued employment is not adequate consideration for a noncompetition agreement once an employee has been hired.

"We find no distinction between a decision to agree to a noncompetition agreement offered at the initial hiring period and a decision to agree" after employment has begun, wrote Justice Allison Eid. 

Read more

Colorado Civil Justice League, the state's leading advocate of "common sense in the courtroom," today applauded the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Ferrellgas vs. Yeiser.

In an en banc ruling, the Court found that Ellen Yeiser, originally the plaintiff in a breach of contract claim, may not collect twice — from both her insurer and from a defendant — for property damage expenses. She also sought damages for loss of use of her home and loss of rental income from defendant Ferrellgas Inc., which supplied propane to the house in Silverthorne.

Yeiser collected property damage and repair expenses from her insurer, which then reached a reimbursement settlement with Ferrellgas. The defendant then offered Yeiser $197,000 to settle her remaining claims, but that offer was rejected.

Ultimately, a jury awarded Yeiser $314,323, but a key question was whether the property damage expenses that Ferrellgas paid to Yeiser's insurer should be deducted from that amount. The Supreme Court ruled that Yeiser wasn't entitled to a double recovery and that Ferrellgas could deduct $212,071 in expenses that it had previously settled with Yeiser's insurer. 

Read more

By Mark Hillman
From The Sunday Denver Post, Nov. 28, 2010

Whether "haggling" at a garage sale or for the best deal on a vehicle, most of us understand the give-and-take that often determines a fair price.

A seller asks a price that is more than he needs to cover costs and a potential buyer responds by offering less than she is actually willing to pay. If the two parties settle on a price, common sense tells us that price is reasonable – i.e., it meets the seller's need to cover costs and fits the buyer's ability and willingness to pay.

A 4-3 majority of the Colorado Supreme Court doesn't seem to understand that the advertised price and the actual cost are often vastly different. In Volunteers of America vs. Gardenswartz, the court considered whether someone injured by another's negligence is entitled to recover the amount originally billed for his medical expenses or the only the amount actually paid to the hospital and doctor. 

Read more

Colorado Supreme Court on Monday handed down a bizarre 4-3 ruling that allows plaintiffs to recover health care costs that they never owed.

The court majority ruled that it's not sufficient for the party at fault to simply reimburse the injured victim for medical costs paid by the victim's insurance. Instead, the court ruled that the victim has a right to recover the original amount billed by the health care provider -- even if the victim or his insurer actually paid far less. 

Read more