Larson v. Sinclair Transportation Co.

81 For a number of reasons identified by Justice Hobbs, I dissent from the majority's opinion. See Larson v. Sinclair Transp. Co., No. 2012 CO 36, 284 P.3d 42 (Hobbs, J., dissenting). I write separately to *58express my view that the language of section 38-5-105 cannot be read as the majority reads it. Because, in my view, respondent is a "pipeline company" falling squarely within the language of section 38-5-105, I would affirm the court of appeals on that ground. See City of Colo. Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461, 468 (Colo.2007) (Eid, J., concurring in part and specially concurring in part)…