Evergreen Investment & Realty Co. v. Baca
Colorado Court of Appeals
1DissentTursi, Judge
Because I agree with the referee’s interpretations of the policy as applied to the pertinent statutes and facts involved in this claim, I respectfully dissent. The policy promises “to pay promptly when due all compensation and other benefits required of [Evergreen] by the workmen’s compensation law.” (emphasis added) And, § 8-44-102, C.R.S.1973, mandates that any contract for the insurance of workmen’s compensation shall be subject to all provisions of the workmen’s compensation act.
The policy does not contain any applicable exclusions. It does contain the following condition:
“This policy is…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Automobile & Casualty Underwriters v. BeesonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1973
- Urtado v. Allstate Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Colorado · 1974
- Industrial Commission v. LopezSupreme Court of Colorado · 1962
- Travelers Insurance v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1922
- Century Indemnity Co. v. KlipfelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.