Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) applies a reasonableness standard to an insurer’s delay or denial of first party benefits.

Zbegner v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2011-12-06(1)(a)

We found no Colorado case defining the elements of a claim under § 10-3-1115(1)(a), but by its terms it sets forth a reasonableness standard as well.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a benefit to be owed before its denial or delay can be unreasonable.

Abercrombie v. Aetna Health, Inc. · filed 2016-03-31(1)(a)

By definition, there can be no benefit “unreasonably denied or delayed” under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(l)(a) if there is no benefit owed in the first instance.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to establish that policy benefits were owed and that the insurer delayed or denied payment without a reasonable basis.

Haptonstall v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2021-02-04(1)(a)

In order to prevail on Colorado’s statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits, a plaintiff must establish that (1) insurance benefits were owed, and (2) the defendant delayed or denied payment of those benefits without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115 does not support an unreasonable delay or denial claim when the insured fails to show that the insurer owed benefits under the policy.

Perry v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-07(2)

Because both the common law and statutory bad faith claims are predicated on the insurer unreasonably delaying or denying benefits and are derivative of Plaintiff’s failed breach of contract claim, they also cannot survive summary judgment.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insurance benefit owed to the claimant before its delay or denial can be unreasonable.

Elmore v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company · filed 2021-09-29(1)(a)

In other words, in order for an insurance benefit to be unreasonably delayed, there must first be a benefit that can be delayed.

Section 10-3-1115 applies to first-party benefit claims even when the insurer and claimant have not determined the amount owed.

Etherton v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2016-07-19(1)(a)

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115 applies to first-party claims for benefits, including those where the amount owed is not yet determined.

A claim for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115 fails when the claimant cannot establish entitlement to the insurance benefits sought.

Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2018-09-20

Because plaintiff has not demonstrated a genuine issue of fact regarding his entitlement to UM/UIM benefits, his claims for bad faith breach of an insurance contract and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 fail as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115 provides no viable unreasonable-denial claim when the insurer properly denies coverage because the insured is not entitled to benefits.

Hall v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2021-01-12

Summary judgment is also proper on Mr. Hall’s claims for unreason- able delay or denial of benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116, and for common law bad faith. Under Colorado law, when an in- surer properly denies coverage, the insured has no viable claim for un- reasonable denial or bad faith.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant alleging unreasonable delay or denial to prove entitlement to benefits under the insurance policy and a delay or denial without a reasonable basis.

York v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · filed 2021-05-19(1)(a)

In order to prevail on Colorado’s statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits, a plaintiff must establish that (1) insurance benefits were owed, and (2) the defendant delayed or denied payment of those benefits without a reasonable basis. See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115(1)(a). Accordingly, a plaintiff must prove entitlement to benefits under the policy in order to prevail on a statutory unreasonable delay or denial of benefits claim.

An insured need not prove a specific business loss or damages to bring a statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits.

Rockhill Insurance Company v. CFI-Global Fisheries · filed 2019-07-24(1)(a)

But the statute contains no requirement that an insured provide evidence of specific business loss or damages.

A statutory unreasonable delay or denial claim requires proof that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for delaying or denying a covered benefit; it does not require bad faith.

Cope v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-31(2)

Unlike a claim for common-law bad faith breach of insurance contract, a statutory unreasonable delay/denial claim does not require a showing of bad faith, but only that the “insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2).

A claim under § 10-3-1115 requires proof that benefits were owed and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of those benefits.

BonBeck Parker, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Company of America, The · filed 2020-02-03(1)(a)

In order to establish its claim for statutory bad faith breach of contract, Bonbeck must establish that (1) benefits were owed; and (2) Travelers “unreasonably” delayed or denied payment of a claim for benefits owed.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a statutory bad faith claimant to show that insurance benefits were owed and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of a first-party claim.

Nyborg v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-07-29(1)(a)

A statutory bad faith claim requires a plaintiff to show that: (1) insurance benefits were owed; and (2) the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of a claim made by a first-party claimant.

A statutory delay or denial claim under section 10-3-1115 fails when the insurance policy does not cover the claimed benefit.

Downtown Lofts LIHTC LLLP v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2020-12-31

Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment in its favor on Plaintiffs’ statutory delay/denial and common law bad faith claims. Generally, this Court has held that where a party’s breach of insurance contract claim fails, the corresponding (and derivative) statutory and common law bad faith breach of insurance contract claims fail as well.

Section 10-3-1115 provides no relief for denial of a claim when the policy does not cover the claimed loss.

Sagome, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Company, The · filed 2021-09-21

Finally, because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a duty of coverage given the lack of physical damage to property, it is not entitled to relief under § 10-3-1115, and its declaratory judgment claim fails as well.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a claimant alleging unreasonable delay or denial to show that the insurer unreasonably withheld a covered benefit.

Kat Construction Management, LLC v. Safeco Insurance Company of America · filed 2022-01-14(1)(a)

Thus, to prevail on a statutory claim, any delay or denial must be both unreasonable and for a covered benefit.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insurer to have a reasonable basis for delaying or denying payment to its insured.

Armata v. AmTrust at Lloyd's Syndicate · filed 2022-08-10(1)(a)

A statutory bad faith claim arises when an insurer delays or denies payment to its insured without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a jury deciding a statutory claim to determine whether the insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis.

GSL Group, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, The · filed 2022-08-12

And to resolve Plaintiff’s statutory claim, the jury will need to determine whether Defendant delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for its conduct.

Allegations that an insurer ignored updated damage reports, requested redundant documents, responded late, and relied on biased adjusters can plausibly establish unreasonable delay or denial of covered benefits under § 10-3-1115.

Cunningham v. Nationwide Insurance Company of America · filed 2022-08-30(1)(a)

The Court finds these allegations sufficient to allege a plausible claim that defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiffs’ contractual rights to benefits under their homeowner’s policy pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115.

Section 10-3-1115 makes an insurer’s delay or denial of payment to its insured without a reasonable basis a breach of its statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Ayala v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-16(1)(a)

Pursuant to § 10-3-1115, an insurer who delays or denies payment to its insured without a reasonable basis breaches its statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Section 10-3-1115 requires factual allegations showing that an insurer lacked a reasonable basis for delaying or denying covered benefits; a conclusory assertion of unreasonableness does not state a claim.

Carraway v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2022-09-26(2)

Because plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that defendant acted without any reasonable basis, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 requires a jury to decide whether an insurer had a reasonable basis to delay payment when material facts about its conduct are disputed.

Pacific Ocean Alameda, LLC v. AmGuard Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-14

It is for the jury to weigh the evidence and determine whether AMGUARD had a reasonable basis to delay payment of the claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires proof that an insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits without a reasonable basis; factual disputes about the insurer’s conduct can preclude summary judgment.

Coleman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-26(1)(a)

A statutory bad faith claim, meanwhile, requires the insured to prove that the insurer denied or delayed the payment of insurance benefits without a reasonable basis. ... Moreover, the Court finds that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on Mr. Coleman’s bad faith claim and unreasonable delay or denial claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insured to show that the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits without a reasonable basis.

Spratley v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-05-15(1)(a)

To prove a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must demonstrate that: (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis.

A factual dispute over whether an insurer reasonably denied coverage based on the reported loss date can preclude summary judgment on an unreasonable-denial claim.

Yosemite Development LLP v. Ohio Security Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-12

• whether Ohio acted unreasonably in denying coverage for hail damage, in part, because Yosemite’s claim as filed specified June 1, 2019, rather than June 19, 2018, as the date of loss.

A statutory claim for unreasonable denial of benefits fails when the insurer’s initial denial complied with the insurance contract and the insured does not allege unreasonable delay.

Bell v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-10

Mr. Bell’s third cause of action is for unreasonable delay and denial of his claim for benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116. Docket No. 5 at 8, ¶¶ 58-65. The Court has found that MassMutual’s initial decision to deny Mr. Bell’s benefits did not breach the insurance contract. Moreover, Mr. Bell does not argue that MassMutual unreasonably delayed a decision on his insurance claim. See Docket No. 44 at 12 (arguing that MassMutual “rushed to decline coverage”). Accordingly, the Court will grant MassMutual’s motion for summary judgment on Mr. Bell’s statutory claim with regard to MassMutual’s initial decision to deny Mr. Bell’s benefits.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 fails when coverage was properly denied and the claimed damages flow only from that denial.

Smither v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-02-07

Given that the Court finds that American Family did not breach the insurance contract here, see supra Section IV.A., Plaintiff’s claims for unreasonable delay or denial of payment of a claim for insurance benefits pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116 and bad faith breach of insurance contract, ECF No. 6 Jf] 33-438, which “flow from the denial of coverage,” also fail as a matter of law and must be dismissed.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires proof that policy benefits were owed and the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-02-21(1)(a)

To prove a statutory bad faith violation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) benefits were owed under the policy; and (2) defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insured to show that the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits without a reasonable basis.

Stanley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-13(1)(a)

To prove a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must demonstrate that: (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a claimant alleging unreasonable delay to show that payment of a covered benefit was delayed; for UIM coverage, the claimant must show damages exceeding the tortfeasor’s policy limits.

Pamarthi v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-17(2)

Plaintiff’s claim for delay cannot succeed because plaintiff has not shown the delay of a “covered benefit,” namely, damages that exceed the tortfeasor’s policy limits.

An insurer’s waiver of a proof-of-loss requirement can allow a claim under § 10-3-1115(2) to proceed when compliance with that requirement bears on whether a benefit is covered.

Power Engineering Co v. Federal Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-05(2)

To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, a plaintiff must show that “the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2). ... A reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Power Engineering, could determine that Federal waived the POL requirement by adjusting the claim and making payments for covered damages.

Section 10-3-1115 requires policy benefits to be owed for a statutory unreasonable delay or denial claim to succeed.

Heffner v. DSI Holdings Corporation · filed 2024-02-28(1)(a)

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Travelers breached the contract, it owes JRT no benefits, and the statutory bad faith claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a statutory bad-faith claimant to show that benefits were owed under the policy and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Mordhorst Cleaning LLC v. American Strategic Insurance Corp. · filed 2024-12-02(1)(a)

But for statutory bad faith claims, a plaintiff must show “(1) benefits were owed under the policy; and (2) defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff's claim.” TBL Collectibles, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1201 (D. Colo. 2018) (emphasis added); see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10- 3-1115(1)(a) (“A person engaged in the business of insurance shall not unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party claimant.”).

Section 10-3-1115 gives a first-party claimant a private action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits owed, but the claim fails when no benefits are owed.

Bell v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-22

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116 do provide private rights of action, but both pertain to an unreasonable delay or denial in “benefits owed” to a first-party claimant. See Sipes v. Allstate Indem. Co., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1084 (D. Colo. 2013). There can be no unreasonable delay or denial when benefits are not owed.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured to show that policy benefits were owed and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Fabian v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-08-11(1)(a)

To establish a claim under § 10-3-1115, a plaintiff “must therefore show that: (1) benefits were owed under the policy and (2) defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.” TBL Collectibles, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1201 (D. Colo. 2018).

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a covered benefit; an insurer cannot unreasonably delay or deny payment of benefits it does not owe.

Keller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-09-15(2)

As noted above, the benefits at issue must have been covered by the insurance policy, and where no benefits are owed, then payment of those benefits cannot, as a matter of law, have been unreasonably delayed to the insured or denied by the insurer.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a claimant to show that policy benefits were owed and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Armstrong v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2024-03-20(1)(a)

To prove a statutory bad faith violation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) benefits were owed under the policy; and (2) defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insured to prove entitlement to a covered benefit before prevailing on a claim for unreasonable delay or denial of payment.

Guild v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2024-04-24(1)(a)

To prevail on her statutory bad faith claim, Plaintiff must establish that Defendant delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a). But if plaintiff fails to prove entitlement to any benefits, she cannot prevail on either type of claim.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 fails when the insurer owes no additional benefits under the policy for the alleged denial.

Vincent v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London · filed 2025-01-31

Because there is no disputed question of material fact as to whether Defendants breached the insurance contract, Defendants are also entitled to judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing as well as their claims under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116.

An insured pursuing a claim for unreasonable delay under § 10-3-1115 need not reestablish entitlement to uninsured motorist benefits that the insurer has already paid without reserving rights.

Uhl v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company · filed 2025-02-11

In Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (or “Motion”), [Doc. 49], Plaintiff seeks to limit the issues for trial by requesting that this Court declare, as a matter of law, that Plaintiff is not required to establish his entitlement to the UM benefits already paid by Progressive as a prerequisite to pursuing his bad faith and unreasonable delay claims. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an unreasonable delay or denial of covered benefits, but does not require proof that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded the unreasonableness of its conduct.

Krum v. Chubb Limited · filed 2024-08-19(1)(a), (2)

And for the statutory tort, Krum must show that Great Northern “unreasonably delayed or denied payment of [covered] benefits, but [he] need not show knowing or reckless conduct.” Id.; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a). “The denial of benefits was unreasonable if [Great Northern] refused to pay ‘a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.’” Sandoval, 952 F.3d at 1236 (quoting § 10-3-1115(2)).

Section 10-3-1115 requires a claimant challenging a denial to show that the insurer acted unreasonably; an incorrect denial alone is insufficient.

El Dueno v. Mid-Century Insurance · filed 2025-05-30(2)

So even if Templeton’s report was wrong about the lack of hail damage, to have an actionable claim under § 10-3-1115 and 1116 Plaintiff must show that Defendant not only wrongly but also unreasonably relied on Templeton’s report.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) does not support a claim for unreasonable delay or denial when the requested benefits are not covered by the policy.

Lucia Family Trust, The v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2025-09-25(1)(a)

As a result, Plaintiff cannot succeed on a statutory bad faith claim for unreasonable delay or denial based on American Family’s refusal to pay uncovered benefits.

Section 10-3-1115 requires benefits to be owed under the policy for an insured to succeed on a statutory bad faith claim.

Sepic · filed 2026-06-08(1)(a)

To be sure, it is well-established that a statutory bad faith claim requires a showing that benefits are indeed owed under the subject insurance policy.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a statutory bad faith claimant to allege that policy benefits were owed and the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Cavalier v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2025-09-17(1)(a)

To state a claim for statutory bad faith, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) benefits were owed under the policy; and (2) the defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) treats unreasonable delay or denial of payment of owed insurance benefits as the relevant injury in a statutory bad faith claim.

Lucia Family Trust, The v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2025-09-25(1)(a)

This reasoning applies to Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim with equal force. Like the common law bad faith claim, the relevant injury is an “unreasonabl[e] delay or den[ial] [of] payment of a claim for benefits owed.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a).

Section 10-3-1115 provides no unreasonable-denial claim when the disputed payment was properly withheld under the contract.

Board of County Commissioners of the County of Douglas, Colorado, The v. Aetna Life Insurance Company · filed 2025-10-10

The same is true of Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116, which govern the unreasonable delay or denial of benefits by an insurance company. ... Court has already concluded Aetna did not breach the contract in keeping the unpaid rebates. Thus, there can be no claim for unreasonable delay or denial.

A claim under Section 10-3-1115 requires the claimant to show that benefits were owed under the insurance policy.

Luizzi · filed 2025-12-04

A key element of a claim pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115 is that Plaintiff must show that benefits were owed under the Policy.

Section 10-3-1115 does not support an unreasonable delay or denial claim when no policy benefits are due.

Peña v. American Family · filed 2018-04-19

And because there was no applicable UMPD coverage here for Peña, there were no benefits which could have unreasonably been delayed or denied under section 10-3-1115.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 fails when the insured cannot prove entitlement to the denied benefits.

Owners Insurance Company v. Stahl · filed 2019-12-05

As described above in Section III(A), Stahl cannot prove that he is entitled to Benefits under the insurance contract. Therefore, Stahl’s claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unreasonable denial of insurance benefits all fail as a matter of law because he cannot prove that: ... 3. Owners violated C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 when it denied him Benefits.

A claimant must prove that an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied a benefit owed under an insurance policy.

Anderson v. American National Property and Casualty Company · filed 2020-01-23(1)(a)

To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, by contrast, a plaintiff need only prove that a benefit to which she was entitled under an insurance policy was unreasonably delayed or denied.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a statutory bad faith claim to involve a loss covered by the insurance policy.

GSL Group, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Company, The · filed 2020-07-24(1)(a)

It is axiomatic that a statutory bad faith claim must involve a loss that is actually covered by the policy itself.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires benefits to be owed under the policy before a denial or delay of payment can support a statutory bad faith claim.

Garrison Property and Casualty v. Horton · filed 2026-03-25(1)(a)

Colorado courts have consistently found that where no benefits are owed under the policy, then payment of benefits cannot, as a matter of law, have been unreasonably delayed to the insured or denied by the insurer. ... As explained above, we likewise find that there was no coverage afforded under the policies and, ... therefore, Appellant Horton was not entitled to a defense. Accordingly, Appellant Horton’s statutory bad faith claim fails.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires benefits to be owed under the policy for a claim of unreasonable delay or denial.

Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Horton · filed 2025-02-25(1)(a)

It is well-established that a claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits requires a showing that benefits are indeed owed under the subject insurance policy. ... Because there is no coverage, Mr. Horton cannot succeed on a statutory bad faith claim.

A statutory claim for unreasonable denial of UIM benefits requires proof of the underinsured motorist’s legal liability, even if the insured drops a separate breach of contract claim.

Stovall v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-07-17

Because the legal liability of the underinsured motorist is an essential element of a UIM insurance claim, and, correspondingly, an essential element of the statutory and common law bad faith and exemplary damages claims, ... a designation of a non-party at fault may be appropriate under § 13-21-111.5.

Section 10-3-1115 limits unreasonable delay or denial claims to first-party claimants and provides no remedy for third-party insurance claims.

Gustafson v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2012-10-05(1)(a)

Accordingly, the remedies provided by Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 are limited to first-party claimants. Because Mr. Gustafson asserts third-party claims, these statutes provide no remedy.

A first-party claimant may pursue an unreasonable-delay claim even when no additional policy benefits remain unpaid.

High Impact LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2020-06-11(1)(b)(I)

There is no requirement that any additional benefits be owed under the Policy before High Impact may assert its statutory bad faith claim against State Farm “on behalf of” the Lees.

An insured asserting entitlement to benefits owed on its behalf is a first-party claimant even if it did not itself incur defense or indemnity costs.

Rockhill Insurance Company v. CFI-Global Fisheries Management · filed 2022-07-28(1)(a)(I)

Plaintiff has presented no authority for its position that a “first-party claimant” must incur costs as a prerequisite to recovery on a statutory bad faith claim. Based on the plain meaning of the statutory language, the Court finds Defendant is asserting an entitlement to benefits owed on its behalf, notwithstanding that Heirloom brought a claim against Plaintiff.

Section 10-3-1115 permits a statutory bad-faith claim by a first-party claimant; a roofing contractor asserting insureds’ rights without showing entitlement to their benefits lacks standing.

Advanced Exteriors, Inc v. Allstate Corporation, The · filed 2022-08-22(1)(b)(I)

Because plaintiff is not a first-party claimant and is instead raising the rights of insureds, plaintiff does not have prudential standing to bring a statutory bad faith claim.

A repair contractor cannot pursue a claim under § 10-3-1115 on an insured’s behalf when it has performed no unpaid repairs and has shown no benefits owed under the policy.

Douglas Smith Builders, LLC v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2024-07-24

In its Response, Plaintiff relies on Kyle W. Larson Enterprises., Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., 305 P.3d 409, 413 (Colo. App. 2012), for the proposition that under Colorado law, repair vendors such as Plaintiff are “first-party claimants” under Colo. Rev. Stat. 10-3-1115 “when they assert an entitlement owed on behalf of an insured under an insurance policy.” But the Court finds the circumstances of that case are distinguishable. There, the plaintiff roofer received the defendant insurers’ approval to make certain repairs, and the insurer paid those claim amounts. Id. at 410. The dispute centered on whether the insurer unreasonably denied payment for additional repairs the roofer made to comply with applicable building codes and to maintain certain manufacturers’ warranties. Id. The court concluded that the roofer could bring a claim against the insurer on behalf of the insured. Id. at 410. By contrast, Plaintiff is not asserting that it made any repairs to the Vazquezes’ property for which it has not been paid. Moreover, under the terms of the Vazquezes’ policy, replacement cost benefits are not due or owed until repairs are completed, and repairs or replacement must be completed within two years of the date of loss. (ECF No. 69, ¶ 48.) Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown an entitlement owed on behalf of the Vazquezes. In the absence of any evidence that Plaintiff performed work for which it was never paid, the Court discerns no concrete injury that would confer it with standing.

Section 10-3-1115 does not let a co-insurer pursue the insured’s statutory bad faith claim merely because it is subrogated to the insured’s rights to recover payments made on other claims.

Acuity v. Kinsale Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-27

The fact that Acuity is subrogated to claims Monarch may have against Kinsale to recover for the payment Acuity made to Phipps does not mean that Acuity can pursue any bad faith claim Monarch may have against Kinsale. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Acuity may not bring Monarch’s statutory bad faith claim against Kinsale and will grant that part of Kinsale’s motion seeking dismissal of Acuity’s statutory bad faith claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(b)(I) does not give a contractor an independent statutory bad faith claim without effective authorization from the insured to assert it.

Mordhorst Cleaning LLC v. American Strategic Insurance Corp. · filed 2025-09-18(1)(b)(I)

Moreover, the Court does not construe the statute to create an independent cause of action for contractors as first- party claimants without an effective authorization from the insured party.

An insured asserting entitlement to benefits owed under an insurance policy qualifies as a first-party claimant under § 10-3-1115(1)(b)(I).

Mulson · filed 2025-12-09(1)(b)(I)

Plaintiff qualifies as a first party claimant under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3- 1115(1)(b)(I) because she claims an entitlement to benefits owed under the Policy.

Section 10-3-1115 includes repair vendors as first-party claimants when they are authorized to assert, and do assert, claims on behalf of insureds.

Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co. · filed 2012-09-27(1)(b)

Consistent with that intent, we construe section 10-3-1115(1)(b) to include vendors such as Roofer who are authorized to assert, and do assert, claims on behalf of insureds.

An additional insured seeking payment of its defense costs qualifies as a first-party claimant when that benefit is owed directly to or on its behalf.

D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. · filed 2014-09-22(1)(b)(I)

The Court concluded that Trimark is a “first-party claimant” under that definition because the benefit Trimark is claiming — a defense, meaning payment of the attor-*1191ne/s fees and other costs that Trimark incurs in defending against the underlying suit — is a benefit owed directly to or on behalf of Trimark.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) can reasonably be read to cover insurance adjusters as persons engaged in the business of insurance who may not delay or deny claim payments.

Seiwald v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2020-11-24(1)(a)

Given that § 10-3-1116(1) does not define who is liable, there is at least a reasonable plain language reading of the statutes that an insurance adjuster, who is defined as a “person” in § 10-3-1102(3), could be a “person engaged in the business of insurance” who may not delay or deny the payment of claims.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a statutory bad-faith claimant to establish an insurance contract with the insurer.

Zzap Wellness, LLC v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida · filed 2024-10-29

In its first amended complaint, Zzap asserts three causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) statutory bad faith under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and § 1116; and (3) common law bad faith. ECF No. 6. Each cause of action requires Zzap to prove the existence of a contract between itself and ABIC.

A fairly debatable denial alone does not establish that an insurer acted reasonably as a matter of law under § 10-3-1115.

Sipes v. Allstate Indemnity Co. · filed 2013-06-07(2)

Even if a defendant’s denial was “fairly debatable” in the common law context, that would not alone establish that the defendant’s actions were reasonable as a matter of law under the statutes.

A fairly debatable claim weighs against finding an insurer’s delay or denial unreasonable, but does not decide that issue as a matter of law.

Dowgiallo v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-11(2)

Instead, “[i]f a reasonable person would find that the insurer’s justification for denying or delaying payment of a claim was ‘fairly debatable,’” that merely “weighs against a finding that the insurer acted unreasonably.”

An insurer does not unreasonably deny UIM benefits when a third-party settlement covers the documented economic damages and the remaining noneconomic claim is fairly debatable.

Traurig v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-22(1)(a)

Because Plaintiff’s settlement with Allstate exceeded her medical bills and any other documented economic damages, the Court finds it to be an undisputed material fact that Plaintiff’s remaining damages are solely noneconomic. Therefore, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff’s claim is “fairly debatable” and, as such, Defendant did not act unreasonably by failing to issue payment.

A claim being fairly debatable does not by itself preclude a finding that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied benefits under § 10-3-1115.

TBL Collectibles, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co. · filed 2018-01-23(2)

As noted previously, the "fair debatability" of an insurance claim does not, under Colorado law, preclude a finding that an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of benefits under § 10-3-1115.

A fairly debatable claim can weigh against liability for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115, but fair debatability alone does not defeat the claim.

Meiman v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-10-13

The defense of fair debatability applies against both versions of the bad faith cause of action. ... However, fair debatability is not an absolute defense.

A fairly debatable insurance claim does not, by itself, establish that the insurer acted reasonably under § 10-3-1115 or entitle it to summary judgment.

Gardner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-11-08(2)

Stated another way, even if Defendant is correct that Plaintiff’s UIM claim was fairly debatable, Defendant’s reliance on fair debatability is insufficient, standing alone, to entitle it to summary judgment on Claim Three.

A valuation dispute alone does not warrant summary judgment on a statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits.

Knight · filed 2026-02-25(2)

Simply characterizing the claim as a value dispute alone, then, does not warrant summary judgment.

Section 10-3-1115 treats fair debatability as a factor in assessing an insurer’s reasonableness, not a complete defense to an unreasonable delay or denial claim.

Wheatridge Office, LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company · filed 2022-01-04(2)

Wheatridge is also correct that “fair debatability” is not an affirmative defense to a statutory claim for the unreasonable delay or denial of benefits.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 may proceed to trial when material facts about the reasonableness of the insurer's delay or denial remain disputed.

Cribari v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-03-21

b. Issues of fact preclude a grant of summary judgment to either Ms. Cribari or Allstate on Ms. Cribari's claims for statutory unreasonable delay and denial and common law bad faith. ... I conclude there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment in favor of either side on these claims.

Section 10-3-1115 does not require an insurer to finish evaluating an incomplete UIM claim within 21 days when the claimant’s delay in submitting the claim created the urgency.

Iwaskow v. SAFECO Insurance Company of America · filed 2023-09-29(1)(a)

Here, where Safeco did not finish evaluating Iwaskow’s incomplete claim in 21 days based on urgency that Iwaskow created, like in Williams, no fact finder could find Safeco acted unreasonably.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a claimant to show that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for delaying or denying a covered benefit; a reasonable basis defeats the claim.

Wagner v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2014-06-19(2)

An insurer’s delay or denial is unreasonable “if the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2). ... We find nothing unreasonable about American Family’s denial of her claim because it had a reasonable basis for its action.

Section 10-3-1115(2) treats denial of a covered benefit as unreasonable when the insurer lacks a reasonable basis; a denial based on a policy exclusion that Colorado law has not held impermissible has a reasonable basis.

Checkley Ex Rel. Checkley v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2016-01-06(2)

A delay or denial is unreasonable “if the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Id. § 10-3-1115(2). ... Further, Allied did not deny the claim without a reasonable basis. The terms of the contract plainly excluded the claim and this exclusion has never been held impermissible under Colorado law. Therefore, the district court properly dismissed both claims for bad faith.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insurer to have a reasonable basis for delaying or denying payment of a covered benefit; a reasonable basis defeats statutory liability.

Anderson v. American National Property and Casualty Company · filed 2019-10-03(1)(a)

In common between the two theories is that to avoid liability the insurer must take actions grounded on a reasonable basis; in other words, if there indeed was a reasonable basis for an insurer’s actions, there can be no liability under either a statutory or common law claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) does not impose liability for denying UIM benefits when the available evidence gives the insurer a reasonable basis to challenge the claim.

Bernal v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2021-06-24(1)(a)

The Court concludes that State Farm has provided sufficient evidence to establish that it acted reasonably as a matter of law in challenging Plaintiff's claim for UIM coverage.

Section 10-3-1115(2) treats an insurer’s position as lacking a reasonable basis when it is groundless and unsupported by credible evidence.

Masters v. SAFECO Insurance Company of America · filed 2021-09-23(2)

In Colorado, acting “without a reasonable basis” has been construed to mean pursuing a groundless position that is not supported by credible evidence.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a reasonable basis for delaying or denying a first-party insurance claim; a statutory claim fails when no reasonable jury could find the insurer’s conduct unreasonable.

Glacier Construction Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America · filed 2014-06-20

Accordingly, applying the appropriate standards, we conclude that no reasonable jury could have found on the evidence presented that Travelers’ post-claim-denial conduct unreasonably delayed or denied Glacier’s claim. Again, this determination is fatal to both the statutory and common law claims.

An insurer breaches section 10-3-1115 by delaying or denying a first-party benefit claim without a reasonable basis.

Williams v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2015-07-15(2)

An insurer breaches the statutory duty if there was “no reasonable basis to delay or deny the claim for benefits.”

Section 10-3-1115 permits an insured claiming unreasonable delay to rely on evidence that the insurer’s initial partial payment was unreasonably low.

Canady v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America · filed 2020-01-23

A plaintiff claiming unreasonable delay may present evidence that the insurer’s initial determination (i.e., the partial payment) was unreasonable.

A statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits requires proof that the insurer acted unreasonably, without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded the unreasonableness; a reasonable investigation defeats the claim.

Sandoval v. UNUM Life Insurance · filed 2020-03-17(1)(a)

For the statutory tort, Ms. Sandoval must show that Unum unreasonably delayed or denied payment of benefits, but need not show knowing or reckless conduct. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a). ... Because Unum reasonably investigated Ms. Sandoval’s claim, the district court properly granted partial summary judgment to Unum on the tort causes of action.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires proof that an insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for doing so.

Corrigan v. Liberty Insurance Corporation · filed 2020-04-22(2)

A statutory unreasonable delay/denial claim requires the plaintiff to prove that the insurer “delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2).

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to establish that insurance benefits were owed and that the insurer delayed or denied payment without a reasonable basis.

Bardill v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2020-08-06(1)(a)

In order to prevail on Colorado’s statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits, a plaintiff must establish that (1) insurance benefits were owed, and (2) the defendant delayed or denied payment of those benefits without a reasonable basis.

An insurer may unreasonably delay or deny benefits by issuing a joint-payee check that the claimant cannot cash alone; another payee’s insured status does not establish that the joint payment was reasonable.

Robles v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-09-15(2)

Likewise, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(a), “[a] person engaged in the business of insurance shall not unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party claimant.” ... As explained above in Part III.B., even if Borgman were an Insured under the Policy, it does not necessarily follow that American Family acted reasonably by issuing a single check payable both Robles and Borgman. ... Accordingly, the Court denies American Family’s request for summary judgment as to common law bad faith claim and statutory claims pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 & 10-3-1116.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to prove that a benefit owed under an insurance policy was unreasonably delayed or denied.

Ramos v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2020-10-19(1)(a)

To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, by contrast, a plaintiff need only prove that a benefit to which she was entitled under an insurance policy was unreasonably delayed or denied.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a statutory bad faith claimant to show that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of a claim.

Traurig v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-03-26(2)

Unlike common law bad faith, the statutory claim requires only a showing that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of the claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to prove that an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied an owed policy benefit.

Yale Condominiums Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2021-04-01(1)(a)

To prevail on a statutory bad faith claim, by contrast, a plaintiff need only prove that a benefit to which it was entitled under an insurance policy was unreasonably delayed or denied.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to prove that an insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis.

First Church of the Nazarene of Colorado Springs, Colorado, The v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2021-08-10(1)(a)

To establish a claim for statutory unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits, Springs First must prove that GuideOne delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit “without a reasonable basis.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a).

A higher appraisal award alone does not establish unreasonable delay or denial under section 10-3-1115; the insurer’s conduct is measured against what a reasonable insurer would do in similar circumstances.

Lindgren v. SAFECO Insurance Company of America · filed 2021-12-16(2)

Here, there is no doubt that the appraisal award is evidence of Plaintiffs’ loss; however, the fact that the ultimate appraisal award was significantly higher than Defendant’s initial offer, without more, does not demonstrate that Defendant’s conduct was unreasonable. After all, the determination of the reasonableness of Defendant’s actions requires application of an objective standard, i.e., what a reasonable insurer would have done under the same or similar circumstances.

A statutory bad faith claim requires plausible allegations that the insured was entitled to policy benefits and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Simental v. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-01-24

Because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege either that she is entitled to benefits under her UIM policy with State Auto or that State Auto acted unreasonably by delaying or denying payment of her claim, Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured claiming unreasonable delay or denial to show that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

Vansky v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-03-28(1)(a), (1)(b)(II)(B)(2)

To prove a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must demonstrate that: (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis.

A statutory bad faith claim for unreasonable denial of insurance benefits may go to a jury when disputes about the insurer’s investigation bear on whether its denial had a reasonable basis.

Chateau Village North Condominium Ass'n v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2016-03-16(1)

Here, there are disputed issues about what defendant’s investigators were told and about what conclusions the investigators reached that a reasonable jury may find material in determining whether plaintiff can prove its bad faith claims. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs statutory and common law bad faith claims.

Whether an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied benefits under § 10-3-1115 may be decided by a jury when the evidence permits a finding that its claim handling was unreasonable.

Por Boy Stores, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America · filed 2022-06-08

Based on the current record, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that a reasonable jury could find Defendant unreasonably handled Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s bad faith and unreasonable delay claims.

Section 10-3-1115 does not treat an insurer’s combined valuation of physical impairment and other nonmonetary damages as unreasonable when the adjuster actually considers impairment damages.

Bondurant v. AAA Insurance · filed 2022-07-25(1)(a)

As long as the insurance adjuster recognizes that damages for impairment are different from, and may be compensated in addition to, pain and suffering damages, and the adjuster has actually taken impairment damages into account in adjusting a claim, then no harm comes to the insured. There is no reckless or unreasonable conduct on behalf of the adjuster just because all non-monetary damages are included as part of one sum in a settlement offer.

A § 10-3-1115 unreasonable delay or denial claim survives summary judgment when material facts remain disputed about whether the insurer’s investigation was timely and reasonable.

Pinon Sun Condominium Association, Inc. v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE · filed 2019-09-27(2)

An insurer’s delay or denial was unreasonable under this provision “if the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis in that action.” ... Upon review of Pinon Sun’s and Great Lakes’ filings and the evidence referenced therein, the Court determines that genuine issues of material fact preclude it from entering summary judgment on any of these three claims. ... As such, the Court denies Great Lakes’ Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Pinon Sun’s claims of breach of contract, unreasonable delay or denial of payment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 survives summary judgment when material facts remain disputed about whether policy benefits were owed and whether the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Curtis Park Group, LLC v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Company · filed 2022-01-24

Having reviewed the Complaint, the Motion for Summary Judgment and related briefing, and the relevant legal authority, the Court finds that there are disputed questions of material fact that preclude summary judgment, including: • The cause of the excessive deflection identified in the podium slabs; • Whether that cause falls within a policy exclusion; e Whether benefits were owed under the policy; and e Whether Allied unreasonable delayed or denied payment of benefits. In view of these factual questions, the Court finds that summary judgment is not appropriate.

A claim under section 10-3-1115 is evaluated objectively against industry standards, and disputed evidence about the applicable standard and the insurer’s reasonableness can preclude summary judgment.

Matson v. Geico Casualty Company · filed 2020-01-24(1)(a)

Both common law and statutory bad faith claims are evaluated objectively, based on industry standards. ... Ms. Matson has, at a minimum, presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to what the industry standard is. As such, the Court cannot grant summary judgment. ... The Court holds that it is more appropriate for a jury, rather than this court at summary judgment, to determine whether Geico’s actions in adjusting Ms. Matson’s claims were reasonable.

Section 10-3-1115 does not impose liability for unreasonable denial when an insurer denies benefits under an unambiguous policy exclusion that leaves the insured without coverage.

Budnella v. USAA General Indemnity Company · filed 2021-01-27

A denial based on the unambiguous language of an insurance policy precludes a finding of unreasonable denial as a matter of law. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hansen, 375 P.3d 115, 117 (Colo. 2015). Here, having found that Exclusion No. 4 should not be stricken from the Policy, USAA GIC’s denial of the claim was in conformance with the policy provisions and was proper, as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115 turns on whether an insurer had an objectively reasonable basis to deny benefits, regardless of an adjuster’s motive or training.

American Insurance Company, The v. Pine Terrace Homeowners Association · filed 2021-05-28(2)

It simply does not matter whether the lack of a reasonable basis is proven to be the result of greed, evil intent, lack of training and knowledge, or mere mistake on the part of the adjuster. If there is no reasonable basis for a full or partial denial of a claim, the statute has been violated.

Section 10-3-1115 requires benefits owed under the policy and an unreasonable delay or denial; an insured’s failure to cooperate can defeat the claim by making the insurer’s conduct reasonable and eliminating coverage.

Ma v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan corporation · filed 2021-06-17(1)(a)

Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs failed to cooperate, the Court finds that Auto-Owners’s actions were reasonable as a matter of law. See Polland, 2019 WL 10258801, at *7. Further, because Plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate “vitiates [their] coverage” under the Policies, and as a result Auto-Owners owes them no benefits, their statutory delay/denial claims fail as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115 requires benefits to be owed and payment to have been unreasonably delayed or denied; an insured’s failure to cooperate that vitiates coverage defeats the statutory claim.

Acosta v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-02(1)(a)

To establish a claim under § 10-3-1115, a plaintiff “must therefore show that: (1) benefits were owed under the policy and (2) defendant unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.” TBL Collectibles, Inc. v. Owners Ins. Co., 285 F. Supp. 3d 1170, 1201 (D. Colo. 2018). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs failed to cooperate, the Court finds that Auto-Owners’s actions were reasonable as a matter of law. See Polland, 2019 WL 10258801, at *7. Further, because Plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate “vitiates [their] coverage” under the Policy, and as a result Auto-Owners owes them no benefits, their statutory delay/denial claims fail as a matter of law. Id. As a result, the Court finds that Auto-Owners is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ statutory delay/denial claims.

Section 10-3-1115 requires benefits owed under the policy and an unreasonable delay or denial; an insured’s failure to cooperate that vitiates coverage defeats the statutory claim because no benefits remain owed.

Frias v. Auto Owners Insurance Company · filed 2021-09-02(1)(a)

Further, because Plaintiffs’ failure to cooperate “vitiates [their] coverage” under the Policy, and as a result Auto-Owners owes them no benefits, their statutory delay/denial claims fail as a matter of law.

An insurer’s nearly twelve-month delay in seeking lost-wage information can leave the reasonableness of its investigation for a jury when material facts about the insured’s submissions are disputed.

Dale v. Country Preferred Insurance Company · filed 2021-07-13(2)

Under the circumstances here, where the insurer fails to seek lost wage information for nearly twelve months and disputes over material facts exist regarding when the insured provided its own wage information, summary judgment is inappropriate.

Section 10-3-1115 allows a statutory bad faith claim to proceed when disputed facts could show that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying coverage.

Vanderlaan v. Ameriprise Auto and Home Insurance · filed 2021-09-27(1)(a)

When there are controverted issues of fact as to whether an insurer had a reasonable basis for denying coverage, summary judgment is not appropriate.

Under § 10-3-1115(2), later developments cannot make an insurer’s earlier decision to delay payment objectively unreasonable.

Byron-Amen v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-05-18(2)

Just as the Colorado Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot rely on later developments to “vindicate[] the Insurer’s [coverage] decision,” Schultz, 429 P.3d at 849, the court concludes that an insured may not rely on later developments to render an insurer’s prior coverage decision objectively unreasonable.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured claiming unreasonable delay to show that the insurer delayed payment without a reasonable basis.

Yeager v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-02

To prevail on his statutory claim at the summary judgment stage, Plaintiff must establish there is no genuine issue that Defendant’s delay of payment was without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires proof that the insurer delayed or denied a covered benefit without a reasonable basis; an insured’s breach that impairs the right to recover can make the insurer’s conduct reasonable.

Olave v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., SI · filed 2023-05-01(2)

Further, to establish a claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115, the plaintiff must prove that “the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3- 1115(2). ... Because Ms. Olave’s breach impaired her rights to recover under the Policy, American Family’s conduct was reasonable. Therefore, the Court concludes that American Family is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ claims 3–6.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) permits an insurer to challenge a claim when the available evidence gives it a reasonable basis to dispute coverage, including a fairly debatable question of medical causation.

Burke v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-06-30(1)(a)

Based on these undisputed material facts, the Court concludes that it was reasonable for State Farm to challenge Ms. Burke’s claim for her rotator cuff injury and treatment as it was “fairly debatable” whether that injury was attributable to the Accident.

Section 10-3-1115 permits insurance regulations to inform whether an insurer acted reasonably, but a regulation is not conclusive of the statutory standard.

Girard Offices, LLC v. American Zurich Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-26

The regulation “provides evidence of industry standards, and therefore of the reasonableness of an insurer’s conduct in any case, but it is not conclusive of the statutory standard of reasonableness under § 10-3-1115.”

Whether an insurer unreasonably delayed or denied benefits under § 10-3-1115 is ordinarily a jury question, and disputed facts about the reasonableness of its investigation and reliance on it preclude summary judgment.

Excel Construction Group v. GuideOne Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-03-20

By their nature, insurance bad faith claims present questions of fact unsuitable for resolution on summary judgment except in limited circumstances. Therefore, whether an insurer’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury. Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 457 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1003 (D. Colo. 2020). This case does not present an exception to that rule. Ultimately, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether Knott’s inspection of the Property constituted a reasonable investigation and whether Defendant’s reliance on such investigation was reasonable.

Section 10-3-1115 bad faith claims are assessed using the evidence before the insurer when it made its coverage decision, making later obtained evidence irrelevant to that claim.

Martinez v. Nationwide Affinity Insurance Co of America · filed 2023-06-07

After carefully considering these arguments and Plaintiffs’ contrary arguments, the Court finds the information sought by the subpoenas is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim for the reasons stated in Schultz v. GEICO Cas. Co., 429 P.3d 844, 846 (Colo. 2018) (holding the insurer’s alleged bad faith conduct must be evaluated based on the evidence before it when it made its coverage decision and, therefore, the insurer may not create new evidence to try to support its earlier coverage decision).

An insurer may unreasonably deny benefits by knowingly disregarding an insured’s reasonable expectation of coverage, even after paying the limits of its amended policy.

Stickelberger v. General Security National Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-25(2)

Therefore, although it is undisputed that General Security has paid Mr. Stickelberger the policy limits under the May 25, 2021 policy, Docket No. 32 at 2, ¶ 4; Docket No. 37 at 8–9, ¶ 30, Mr. Stickelberger’s evidence demonstrates that there is a dispute of material fact as to whether General Security knowingly disregarded the fact that Mr. Stickelberger would have a reasonable expectation of coverage up to $423,000 when denying his claim.

Section 10-3-1115 leaves the reasonableness of an insurer’s delay for the jury when facts about the claimant’s medical submissions and the insurer’s notice are disputed.

Dale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2023-10-23(2)

Ultimately, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether Plaintiff timely provided requested medical information and whether State Farm had sufficient notice that the documents were allegedly sent. Based on the record, it is for a jury to decide whether State Farm acted reasonably under the circumstances. Accordingly, summary judgment is not warranted.

An insurer’s reliance on a medical expert does not by itself establish that its denial was reasonable as a matter of law under § 10-3-1115.

Martin-Harker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-26(2)

As an initial matter, the fact that State Farm relied on Dr. Stull’s report in denying Ms. Martin-Harker’s claim does not mean that State Farm acted reasonably as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115 prohibits an insurer from unreasonably delaying or denying covered benefits, and a factual dispute over the reasonableness of its investigation and claim handling can preclude summary judgment.

Foote v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2023-12-19

Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115, an insurer may not “unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party claimant.” An insurer's delay is unreasonable “if the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Id. ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, as the Court must, the Court finds that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the reasonableness of State Farm’s investigation and its actions during and after the appraisal process.

Section 10-3-1115 permits an unreasonable denial claim to reach a jury when the evidence could show that the insurer’s claim investigation was unreasonable.

Tafoya v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company · filed 2023-12-22

Indeed, a reasonable juror may well conclude that Defendant’s investigation was unreasonable.

An insurer’s failure to pursue available sources of claim information before denying benefits for alleged noncooperation may support a finding of unreasonable denial or delay.

Todd v. USAA General Indemnity Company · filed 2024-01-24(1)(a)

A statutory bad faith claim, meanwhile, requires the insured to prove that the insurer denied or delayed the payment of insurance benefits without a reasonable basis. ... To the contrary, a reasonable jury could determine that USAA engaged in unreasonable conduct, when, amongst other things, it failed to pursue other available resources to acquire information regarding Plaintiffs’ plumbing and appliances and then denied Plaintiffs coverage for these losses on the basis of their alleged noncooperation.

When an insurer’s reasonableness is disputed, a claim for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115 presents a fact question for the jury, assessed against industry standards.

Stewart v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2024-08-09(1)(a)

The determination of whether American Family’s conduct was reasonable in these circumstances cannot be made by the Court on summary judgment; rather, the reasonableness of Defendant’s conduct is a question of fact for the jury to decide, based on proof of industry standards.

A statutory bad faith claim requires that an insurer deny a first-party claim without a reasonable basis, but does not require proof that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded that its conduct was unreasonable.

Martin-Harker v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-26(2)

Whether State Farm willfully or recklessly disregarded the unreasonableness of its conduct is not relevant to a statutory bad faith claim, but is only relevant to a common law bad faith claim. “While first-party bad faith principles require a plaintiff to establish that the insurer knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that its conduct was unreasonable, . . . the statutory claim requires only that a first-party claim be denied without a reasonable basis.” Vaccaro v. Am. Fam. Ins. Grp., 275 P.3d 750, 756. Because the Court dismissed Ms. Martin-Harker’s common law bad faith claim, Mr. Sitcoff’s opinion as to whether State Farm willfully or recklessly disregarded the unreasonableness of its conduct is irrelevant. Docket No. 88 at 22. Accordingly, the Court will exclude Opinion 8.

Section 10-3-1115 bars unreasonable delay or denial of first-party benefits, and factual disputes about the reasonableness of an insurer’s investigation and denial can preclude summary judgment.

Svoboda v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-07-16

Similarly, under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115, an insurer may not “unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party claimant.” Assessing the reasonableness of the insurer’s conduct is, in most cases, a question of fact for the jury to decide. Thompson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 457 F. Supp. 3d 998, 1003 (D. Colo. 2020) (citing Zolman v. Pinnacol Assurance, 261 P.3d 490, 496 (Colo. App. 2011)). Such is the case here. Three material fact disputes illustrate this point.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires a claimant to show that the insurer denied or delayed payment of benefits owed without a reasonable basis; one reasonable basis for denial defeats the claim.

Fire Loss Response, LLC v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2025-09-16(1)(a)

To prevail on a claim for statutory bad faith delay or denial of insurance benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a) a plaintiff must establish that her insurer (1) denied or delayed payment of a claim for benefits owed and (2) the denial or delay lacked a reasonable basis. ... An insurer does not need multiple reasonable bases to deny a claim.

An insurer has a reasonable basis for denying benefits under this section when it relies on a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous policy, even if the insured’s interpretation prevails on the contract claim.

Semaho, Inc v. AMCO Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-30(1)(a)

To the extent Semaho’s bad faith claims rely on AMCO’s failure to adopt Semaho’s interpretation of the Policy, the claims fail as a matter of law. As explained above, the Policy is ambiguous as to the calculation of the deductible under the Endorsement, and AMCO’s interpretation of the relevant Policy provisions was reasonable. Accordingly, when AMCO invoked that reasonable interpretation to deny coverage based on Semaho’s competing understanding of the Policy, AMCO had a “reasonable basis” for doing so.

Disagreement between the insurer’s and insured’s experts alone does not establish an unreasonable denial under § 10-3-1115; the insured must identify a relevant industry standard the insurer violated.

Marra · filed 2026-02-24

However, the mere fact that there was disagreement between Dr. Eskay- Auerbach’s report and Dr. Scheper’s report is insufficient to show that Defendant’s reliance on Dr. Eskay-Auerbach’s report was unreasonable. ... Here, Plaintiff does not articulate any relevant insurance industry standard that Owners violated by relying on the Eskay-Auerbach report or through the actions it took in response to receiving Dr. Scheper’s conflicting opinions.

Section 10-3-1115 allows an unreasonable-denial claim to proceed when evidence could let a jury find that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits.

Chancellor · filed 2026-03-31

Plaintiffs have thus cited evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that State Farm lacked a reasonable basis for the denial, and the reasonableness of State Farm’s decision cannot be decided as a matter of law.

Section 10-3-1115 requires evidence that an insurer acted unreasonably; failing to consider future pain and suffering or impairment does not establish bad faith without facts supporting those damages or an applicable industry standard.

Harrison v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-09-30(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Harrison has not created a dispute of material fact as to whether State Farm’s failure to consider future pain and suffering, impairment, or any other class of future damages in its evaluation constituted bad faith under § 10-3-1115.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured claiming unreasonable delay or denial to show that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

Cody · filed 2025-10-23(1)(a)

“To succeed on a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must establish that (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis.”

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured to show that the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits without a reasonable basis.

Shaver · filed 2025-12-18(1)(a), (2)

To prove a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must demonstrate that the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured and the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis. See Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga, 418 P.3d 1181, 1185-86 (Colo. 2018).

Section 10-3-1115 requires a claimant to prove that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

Cunningham · filed 2026-02-09(2)

To prevail on claims for violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115, -1116, and bad faith breach of an insurance contract, Plaintiff must prove that Travelers delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

An insurer’s failure to explain why apparent hail damage is uncovered can plausibly allege denial of benefits without a reasonable basis.

Claudio De Castro and Dulce S. De Castro v. State Farm Fire · filed 2026-03-13(2)

Ignoring widespread hail damage without explaining why it is not covered under the Policy constitutes a plausible allegation that defendant denied plaintiffs’ claims without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115(1) concerns delay or denial of a specific claim for covered benefits, so conduct before the claim and coverage determination is generally irrelevant to statutory bad faith.

Lynn · filed 2025-12-02(1)

In other words, statutory bad faith concerns a specific “claim” and “covered benefit.” Thus, a delay in payment can only occur after such claim is made and after a coverage determination, making pre-claim conduct largely irrelevant.

Section 10-3-1115(2) judges unreasonable delay or denial by whether a reasonable insurer in similar circumstances would have delayed or denied the claim.

Cranor · filed 2026-02-25(2)

The question is whether a reasonable insurer under similar circumstances would have denied or delayed payment of the claim.

Section 10-3-1115(2) permits the absence of controlling coverage precedent to weigh in the insurer’s favor, but that fact alone does not establish that its denial was reasonable.

Illinois Union Insurance Company v. Club Valencia Condominium Owners Association · filed 2026-03-10(2)

Thus, the fact that there is no controlling precedent weighs in favor of IUIC not acting in bad faith, but it is not determinative.

Section 10-3-1115(2) assesses the reasonableness of a coverage denial using information available to the insurer when it made its decision; evidence first disclosed after suit cannot establish that the earlier decision was unreasonable.

Gilmore · filed 2026-03-24(2)

However, even if the Court considered such evidence, plaintiff cannot establish that defendant’s coverage decision was unreasonable because none of this evidence was disclosed to defendant before filing suit.

An insurer does not unreasonably delay a UIM claim by failing to investigate it before the insurer has reason to know the insured is making a UIM claim.

Crimaldi · filed 2026-03-27(2)

Thus, Mr. Crimaldi fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether State Farm acted unreasonably by not investigating his UIM claim before March 8, 2022.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires proof that an insurer delayed payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis; a later payment exceeding the initial payment does not, by itself, establish unreasonable delay.

Greystoke Condominiums Association, Inc. v. Westfield Insurance Company · filed 2026-03-31(2)

As a threshold matter, the Court finds Plaintiff cannot meet its burden of showing unreasonable delay merely by pointing to the fact that Defendant ultimately paid over $1.1 million more in benefits than its initial payment in March 2020.

Section 10-3-1115 makes an insurer’s liability for unreasonable delay or denial depend on the facts and circumstances, with its actions reviewed de novo.

No. · filed 2010-02-01

Whether the insurance carrier's actions were "unreasonable" or "without a reasonable basis" for purposes of liability under sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 will be based upon the facts and circumstances presented to the court, who will review such actions de novo.

Section 10-3-1115(2) treats delay or denial of a covered benefit as unreasonable when the insurer lacks a reasonable basis; a genuine factual dispute on that issue prevents summary judgment.

Baker v. Allied Property & Casualty Insurance · filed 2013-04-05(2)

“[A]n insurer’s delay or denial was unreasonable if the insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” C.R.S. § 10-3-1115(2). ... Again, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Baker, I conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact exists on the claims for bad faith breach of contract and unreasonable denial of med-pay benefits by AIlied/Nationwide.

A jury may find unreasonable delay when an insurer waits to offer the amount it internally values as a policy benefit.

Wahlert v. American Standard Insurance · filed 2016-03-29

I conclude that a jury could reasonably find that a benefit of the policy was at least American Standard’s $7,986 to $8,000 internal valuation, but that American Standard’s failure to offer that amount for approximately 19 months was an unreasonable delay.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires an insured to show that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for delaying or denying payment.

Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga · filed 2018-05-29(2)

In order to be successful on a claim under section 10-3-1116(1), however, the insured must show that the insurer’s denial or delay of payment “was without a reasonable basis.” § 10-3-1115(2).

The reasonableness of an insurer’s delay or denial is evaluated using the information before it when it made its coverage decision.

v. GEICO Casualty Company · filed 2018-11-05(2)

We perceive no basis to depart from this well-established principle, and, thus, we reaffirm that the reasonableness of an insurer’s decision to deny or delay benefits to its insured must be evaluated based on the information that was before the insurer at the time it made its coverage decision.

Section 10-3-1115 requires proof that policy benefits were owed and that the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment.

Montmeny v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-05-31

But to prevail on a claim under C.R.S. § 10-3-1115, a plaintiff need only show that: (1) benefits ... were owed under the policy; and (2) the insurer unreasonably delayed or denied payment of plaintiff’s claim.

An insurer’s use of medical valuation software as part of evaluating a claim does not, by itself, establish unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115.

Benson v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2020-01-27(1)(a)

Plaintiff has provided no evidence from which the court could conclude that the use of MDP software as part of the evaluation process engaged in by Allstate adjusters is per se unreasonable, especially given the testimonial evidence that use of MDP was only a part of the overall process.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insurer to have a reasonable basis for delaying or denying payment of a covered benefit; factual disputes about reasonableness can preclude summary judgment.

Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-21(2)

There are genuine disputes of material fact which preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff's third claim for relief, alleging unreasonable delay and denial of insurance benefits in violation of C.R.S. § 10-3-1115, and the Motion is DENIED with respect to that claim.

Section 10-3-1115 requires facts showing that an insurer lacked a reasonable basis to delay or deny payment of a covered benefit; conclusory allegations of unreasonableness are insufficient.

Herrig v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I. · filed 2022-12-28(1)(a), (2)

To succeed on a statutory unreasonable delay or denial claim, Plaintiffs must prove that the insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis. ... However, Plaintiffs never specifically allege any facts showing that Defendant’s actions were unreasonable or how they were unreasonable; rather, their allegations of unreasonable conduct by Defendant are wholly conclusory.

Section 10-3-1115 requires an insured to show that the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits without a reasonable basis.

Picard v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-06-10

To succeed on a claim of unreasonable delay or denial, an insured must establish that (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis. ... Accordingly, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on both of Plaintiff’s bad faith claims.