Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hoff v. Industrial Claim Appeals office

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided October 9, 2014No. Court of Appeals No. 13CA1798Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

JUDGE CASEBOLT

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

¶ 46 I fully concur that petitioner, Norma Patricia Hoff, has standing to challenge the ALJ’s order and the Panel’s conclusion that MDR was not covered by the insurance policy issued by Pinnacol to MDR. Therefore, I join in part II of the majority opinion. I also agree that the Panel misconstrued the law of promissory estoppel and that the ease must be remanded to the ALJ to address whether a promise made by Pinnacol and Bradley induced action or forbearance and whether injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. Hence,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Morrison v. GoodspeedSupreme Court of Colorado · 1937
  2. Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  3. Nelson v. ElwaySupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
  4. Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2000
  5. Union Insurance Co. v. HoutzSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994

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