Legal Opinion
Stoesz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided June 18, 2015No. Court of Appeals No. 14CA0956PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by JUDGE WEBB
¶ 1 One might think that the meaning of "payment"-a word in everyone's vocabulary-is beyond dispute. But in this action to recover underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits from defendant, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, applying the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-107.5(1)(b), C.R.S.2014, requires that this word be defined. And the statute does not do so.
¶ 2 Plaintiff, Edna Ella Stoesz, State Farm's insured, did not bring the action within three years of the underlying accident. Still, she entered into a settlement agreement with the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lozano v. Montoya AlvarezSupreme Court of the United States · 2014
- Colorado Water Conservation Board v. Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy DistrictSupreme Court of Colorado · 2005
- Terranova v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1990
- Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2002
- Gutter v. SeamandelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Amir Massihzadeh v. Tom SeaverColorado Court of Appeals · 2019
- Eckard v. State Farm Mutual AutomobileCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2022
- Eckard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance CompanyDistrict Court, D. Colorado · 2021