Industry News

For any settlement involving a minor child to be binding in Colorado, it must be approved by the probate court of the county where the minor child resides.  A new trend has developed in some Probate Courts in Colorado, such as Denver and Adams Counties.  These jurisdictions have adopted a VERY DIFFERENT approach to determining petitions for approval of minor settlements where the minor claimant is unrepresented and an insurance company is seeking approval of the settlement.

Federal and state consumer-protection laws are now frequently invoked in recreation-oriented litigation via claims for false or misleading advertising.  Plaintiffs’ attorneys do this primarily because many of these statutes are punitive and provide for as much as double or even triple damages against “violators.” Additionally, your advertising can be considered an “express representation” (or in more formal legal terms, a “warranty”) of what your recreational product is going to be like for the client/participant.

Professional-malpractice attorneys Doug Stevens and David Werber were invited once again to speak to a group of students at the Denver School of Nursing.  Their May 7, 2012 presentation covered many of the critical issues that confront nursing professionals:

John Grund, Deana Dagner, and Joan Allgaier achieved a defense verdict on April 5, 2012, following a nine-day jury trial before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff was seeking more than $30 million in damages (including a claimed $5.8 – $14.1 million dollars in economic losses) against Grund ∙ Dagner’s client, a non-profit organization that provided, among other services, adaptive skiing for disabled persons.

On April 12, 2012, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided TCD, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2012 WL 1231964 (Colo.App. 2012), an opinion that is favorable on several fronts to insurers in construction-defect actions. 

The Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, includes several amendments affecting the timing of removal in diversity-jurisdiction cases, removal in cases with multiple defendants, determining the amount in controversy, original jurisdiction, and venue.  Important changes regarding removal include:

• Each defendant has 30 days from the date of service to initiate removal, so all defendants are now on an equal footing. If removal is initiated by a later-served defendant, earlier-served defendants may join in or consent to the removal;
• The “rule of unanimity” is now codified, requiring all defendants to consent to removal;
• When a case is removed based on diversity, and the amount in controversy (“AIC,” and it remains in excess of $75,000) is contested, the "preponderance of the evidence" standard applies.  The amendments set forth some procedures for determining whether the standard has been met; 
• When a complaint does not indicate the AIC, the defendant may still remove, even after the 30-day period expires, if discovery from the plaintiff shows that the AIC exceeds $75,000;
• A carefully crafted "bad-faith" exception to the existing statutory provision that prohibits removal of a diversity case more than one year after filing; and
• Upon removal, district courts must now sever and remand claims that are not within the original or supplemental jurisdiction of the district court (or which are nonremovable by statute).

The effective date of the Act is Jan. 8, 2012.  It applies to actions commenced on or after the effective date, and state actions removed to federal court are deemed to commence on the date the action was filed in state court, as defined by state law.  Thus, the amended removal statutes will not apply to any action that was commenced in state court before Jan. 8, 2012. 

The Act also includes amendments affecting original jurisdiction and venue.

On November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that will significantly impact construction-defect insurance coverage.