Legal Opinion · Dissent

Calderon v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided November 7, 2016No. Supreme Court Case 14SC494Published

1DissentJustice Gabriel

¶18 The majority concludes that section 10-4-609(l)(c), C.R.S. (2016), prohibited American Family from setting off from the amount due Calderon pursuant to his uninsured or underinsured motorist (“UM/UIM”) coverage the amount that American Family had previously paid pursuant to Calderon’s medical payments (“MedPay”) coverage. See maj. op. ¶¶ 7, 17. In my view, however, the statutory scheme governing automobile insurance permits such a setoff when, as here, a setoff is necessary to avoid a double recovery at the insurer’s expense,

¶19 Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

I. Facts

¶20 I agree with…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. McMichaelSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  2. Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  3. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. KeelanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1992
  4. Kral v. American Hardware Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1989
  5. Colorado Permanente Medical Group, P.C. v. EvansSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API