Blog

Today (November 3, 2014), the Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari review on three cases, all of which may be important to civil defense lawyers practicing in Colorado. In order of their relative interest, the cases are:

1. Martinez et al. v. Mintz Law Firm LLC et al., 14SC1. Included among the issues up for review is whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable when it is included in a contingency fee agreement, which agreement does not comply with C.R.C.P. Chap. 23.3. This has the potential to shape a number of arguments and defenses in legal malpractice cases involving plaintiff’s personal injury lawyers.

2. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 14SC99. Included among the issues up for review is (a) whether the Court of Appeals impermissibly relied on extrinsic evidence in concluding that an insurance policy was ambiguous, (b) what “fairly debatable” means in the context of bad faith cases, (c) whether there can be bad faith when there were no damages recoverable under the policy, and (d) “whether C.R.S. § 10-3-1116 authorizes an insured whose claim has been unreasonably delayed or denied to bring an action to recover two times the covered benefit in addition to the covered benefit itself.”

3. Warne v. Hall, 14SC176. The issues up for review in this case all involve the extent to which the standard for motions to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) incorporate the standards set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). The further incorporation of Twombly standards into Colorado state court practice, have the potential for significant impacts on cases currently pending, and those to be filed.

– Ron Nemirow

Ron Nemirow and the attorneys of Nemirow Perez P.C. are litigators assisting attorneys and law firms in defending against malpractice claims, and grievances to the Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation.