Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115

Section 10-3-1115(1) prohibits unreasonable delay or denial of benefits owed to a first-party claimant; allegations of a two-year delay can state a plausible claim.

Bardill v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2019-09-30(1)

As such, accepting as true Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant delayed for over two years in investigating and denying his claim for UM Benefits (Doc. # 20 at 23-33), the Court too finds that the Amended Complaint sets forth a plausible claim for violations of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10- 3-1115(1) and 1116(1).

Section 10-3-1115 treats a delay or denial of a covered benefit as unreasonable when the insurer lacks a reasonable basis for it.

Praetorian Insurance Company v. Axia Contracting, LLC · filed 2020-09-23(2)

An insurer breaches its statutory duty under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115 if there “was no reasonable basis to delay or deny the claim for benefits.”

A statutory bad faith claim requires facts showing that an insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis; a higher competing repair estimate alone is insufficient.

Foster v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2024-03-01(1)(b)(II)(B)(2)

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. ... Because Mr. Foster has failed to plausibly allege that State Farm acted without any reasonable basis, the Court will dismiss his statutory bad faith claim.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) prohibits unreasonable delay or denial of first-party benefits; a statutory bad faith claim requires a delay or denial without a reasonable basis.

Drake v. Amerisure Partners Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-20(1)(a)

By statute, insurers “shall not unreasonably delay or deny payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of any first-party claimant.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(1)(a). To state a claim for statutory bad faith breach of an insurance contract, a plaintiff must plausibly allege “(1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis.” Stewart, 744 F. Supp. 3d at 1201 (citing Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga, 418 P.3d 1181, 1185-86 (Colo. 2018)). ... Therefore, Mr. Drake has failed to allege the second element of his statutory bad faith claim, and the Court will dismiss that portion of Mr. Drake’s first and second claims based on Amerisure’s denial of coverage.

Section 10-3-1115(1)(a) requires an insured to show that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis; expert evidence about claim handling can create a triable issue on reasonableness.

Terranova v. SAFECO Insurance Company of America · filed 2024-09-05(1)(a)

To succeed on a claim under this statute, 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. ... For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s expert evidence creates triable issues of fact as to both claims.

Section 10-3-1115 requires a claimant to prove that an insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis; a genuine dispute over the cause and value of a claim can defeat that showing.

Ramsey v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company · filed 2025-09-30(2)

To prevail on her claim for violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115, -1116, Plaintiff must prove that Defendant delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis. ... On these facts, no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendant delayed or denied payment of Plaintiff’s UIM claim without a reasonable basis.

Section 10-3-1115 allows recovery for an unreasonable delay or denial caused by an insurer’s belief that the policy should never have been issued; liability is not limited to claims handling.

Home Loan Investment Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. · filed 2016-07-05(1)(a)

Accordingly, we hold liability under sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116 is not limited to claims-handling conduct.

Section 10-3-1115(2) does not make a 48-day delay categorically too short to be unreasonable.

Haynes v. Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance · filed 2020-02-18(2)

Similarly, Allstate fails to cite any authority to support its implication that 48 days is an insufficient period of time to constitute “unreasonable delay” as a matter of law, and the Court is aware of none.

An insurer’s internal valuation of noneconomic damages alone does not establish an undisputed benefit that must be paid to avoid unreasonable-delay liability under § 10-3-1115.

Hallaren v. Geico Casualty Company · filed 2021-09-10

Therefore, the Court finds that, under Colorado law, an insurer’s internal claim evaluation of non-economic damages is not evidence of an undisputed amount which must be paid per the reasoning in Fisher II.

Section 10-3-1115 permits a claim when an insurer allegedly withholds undisputed UIM benefits unless the insured agrees to settle.

Benzor v. GEICO Casualty Company · filed 2021-09-27

Insurers have a duty not to unreasonably delay or deny payments of undisputed covered benefits. ... Those allegations are that defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s UIM claim was worth at least $45,756.25 and yet refused to pay that amount ...unless plaintiff agreed to settle his claim.3 See Docket No. 3 at 3-4, ¶¶ 37, 45-47. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116 and a claim for common law bad faith breach of insurance contract.

Section 10-3-1115(2) does not require payment of medical expenses as an undisputed covered benefit when the parties dispute the insured’s economic damages.

Gribowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2022-11-10(2)

Because the parties dispute the economic damages suffered by Plaintiff, I cannot find that a Fisher payment should have been made.

Post-litigation claim handling is discoverable when it bears on whether an insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

Diedrich v. Hurst · filed 2025-01-21(1)(A)

Simply put, discovery regarding Defendant’s post-litigation claim handling—including handling of information received from Plaintiff—is relevant to Plaintiff’s bad faith claim and, by extension, Plaintiff’s breach of insurance contract and unreasonable delay or denial of benefits claims.

Section 10-3-1115 can require an insurer to pay a covered part of a UIM claim without unreasonable delay even while the rest of the claim remains disputed.

Fisher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2015-05-07(2)

Neither the statute nor the policy requires that all of a claim be established beyond reasonable dispute before a duty to pay some of the claim that is not reasonably in dispute arises.

Section 10-3-1115 requires insurers not to unreasonably delay or deny payment of covered benefits even when other parts of the insured’s claim remain reasonably disputed.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Fisher · filed 2018-05-21(2)

Moreover, nothing in the statute requires or supports withholding payment of undisputed covered benefits simply because other portions of an insured’s UIM claim remain disputed.

Section 10-3-1115 permits an unreasonable delay claim when an insurer lacks a reasonable basis for delaying payment of disputed business loss benefits.

Hampden Auto Body Co. v. Owners Insurance Company · filed 2020-02-04

Hampden therefore has put forth sufficient evidence to state an unreasonable delay/denial claim on business losses, and the Prior Order’s dismissal of this claim was in error.

Section 10-3-1115 does not require an insurer to pay a settlement offer as undisputed benefits when the amount of benefits remains reasonably disputed.

Cooper v. Shelter General Insurance Company · filed 2023-01-31(1)(a)

Because the amount of such benefits remained in dispute, it was not unreasonable for Shelter to withhold payment, as a Fisher payment or otherwise.

An insurer’s duty to negotiate, settle, or pay a claim may be suspended when litigation has begun and the claim amount is genuinely disputed.

Pace v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company, The · filed 2020-11-02(1)(a)

Based on the foregoing, I conclude Travelers’s duty to negotiate, settle, or pay was suspended for purposes of Mr. Pace’s statutory bad faith claim.

Section 10-3-1115 permits liability for unreasonably delaying payment of covered benefits after the insured files suit.

US General v. Guideone Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-12-12

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115, the unreasonable delay statute, contains no language stating that an insurer cannot incur liability for unreasonably delaying payment after the insured files suit.

Claims under § 10-3-1115 accrue in the same manner as bad faith claims.

Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. · filed 2014-09-29

The Court turns to Wardcraft’s claims for violation of § 10-3-1115 and § 10-3-1116, which accrue in the same manner as bad faith claims.

A statutory unreasonable-delay claim accrues when the insured knows or reasonably should know that the insurer has failed to investigate and evaluate the claim without a reasonable basis; the insured need not know the insurer’s specific reason for the delay.

Gargano v. Owners Insurance · filed 2015-08-18

But even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gargano—i.e., that her counsel provided Owners with continuous information in support of her UM claim beginning in August 2009—her bad-faith/unreasonable-delay claims still accrued before the critical date of April 26, 2010 (two years before she filed her Bad-Faith Action). ... Second, for her claim to accrue, she needed to know (or should have known) “all material facts essential to show the elements of [her] cause of action,” Miller, 817 P.2d at 113 (internal quotation marks omitted), but she did not need to know “the specific acts . . . committed by the defendant or . . . the details of the evidence which were necessary to prove the claim,” Mastro v. Brodie, 682 P.2d 1162, 1169 (Colo. 1984).

A claim for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115 has a two-year limitations period, and an amended statutory claim can relate back to a timely common law bad faith claim arising from the same allegedly unreasonable conduct.

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. High Country Coatings, Inc. · filed 2019-04-24

The statute of limitations for filing a bad faith claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115, 1116 is two years from "when the injury, loss, damage, or conduct giving rise to the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered by exercise of reasonable diligence." ... Here, HCC's original counterclaim, filed on February 3, 2017, within the two-year period, asserted common law "bad faith." The amended counterclaim added the statutory claim for unreasonable delay or denial of an insurance benefit, essentially a statutory bad faith claim. It arises out of the same allegedly "unreasonable" conduct. Accordingly, I will not grant summary judgment dismissing HCC's claims based on the statute of limitations defense.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 accrues like a common-law bad faith claim, and continued claim evaluation can prevent a limitations defense from being established on the pleadings.

DeBaca v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida · filed 2022-09-07

Plaintiff’s second claim for relief is that defendant unreasonably delayed or denied UIM benefits owed to plaintiff in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115 for statutory bad faith. ... Statutory bad faith claims “accrue in the same manner as [common law] bad faith claims.” Wardcraft, 70 F. Supp. 3d at 1213. ... The Court finds that the complaint itself does not admit all the elements of the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and, as a result, dismissal is inappropriate.

A claim for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115 is subject to a two-year limitations period and accrues when the insured knows or should know the injury and its cause.

Clark's Cherry Villa's Condominium Association, Inc. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2023-08-03

However, Plaintiff omits reference to Pham’s preceding statement—essential and applicable here—that such a claim “accrues on the date on which both the injury and its cause are known or should have been known through the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Pham, 70 P.3d at 571; see also Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(1). Under Colorado law, that accrual test controls all Plaintiff’s claims.

A bad faith benefits claim under § 10-3-1115 against an ERISA plan provider is preempted by ERISA.

Walden v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of America, Inc. · filed 2014-12-16

Plaintiffs third claim for relief alleges a bad faith breach of contract claim and seeks double damages, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116. MetLife asserts, and I agree, that this claim should be dismissed because it is preempted by ERISA.

Section 10-3-1115 supports a claim when a first-party claimant alleges that an insurer failed to pay covered benefits despite receiving the documentation needed to process the claim.

Mordhorst Cleaning LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2021-12-28

Mordhorst Cleaning brings two claims: breach of contract and violation of C.R.S. § 10-3-1115 for unreasonably delaying or denying payment of a claim for benefits owed to or on behalf of a first-party claimant. ... The facts alleged support Mordhorst Cleaning’s claims.

A claim for unreasonable delay under § 10-3-1115 must plead facts supporting an inference that payment was delayed, the delay was unreasonable, and the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for it.

Dowgiallo v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2020-04-16(1)(a)

The Complaint here woefully fails to set forth facts from which the court could infer that there was any delay in processing, that such delay was unreasonable, and that Defendant had no reasonable basis for the delay, if indeed there was one.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a claimant to plead facts showing entitlement to policy benefits and an unreasonable denial or delay of payment; an unsupported request for additional benefits does not suffice.

Garcia v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2021-12-06(2)

Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to establish either that he was entitled to benefits under his UIM policy with Defendant or that Defendant acted unreasonably by failing to investigate his unsupported claim, both of which are fatal to his case. Therefore, Plaintiff’s statutory bad faith claim is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Section 10-3-1115 permits a statutory claim where the insured pleads that she gave the insurer evidence her damages exceeded the tortfeasor’s policy limits but the insurer made no payment.

Haraburda v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company · filed 2022-09-20(1)(a), (2)

Instead, plaintiff pleads that she provided evidence that her damages exceeded Ms. Post’s policy limits, but defendant has failed to make any payments to plaintiff. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116 and a claim for common law bad faith breach of insurance contract.

A claimant sufficiently pleads unreasonable denial of underinsured motorist benefits under § 10-3-1115 by alleging that damages exceeded the tortfeasor’s liability limits and the insurer made no payment.

Foster v. USAA General Indemnity Company · filed 2022-12-12(1)(a)

Plaintiffs plead that their damages exceeded Mr. Chacon’s liability limits, but defendant has failed to make any payments to plaintiff. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and 1116 and a claim for common law bad faith breach of insurance contract.

A claim under § 10-3-1115 requires factual allegations plausibly showing that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis; conclusory allegations of unreasonable conduct are insufficient.

LaGuardia v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company · filed 2023-04-04

To state a claim of unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115, an insured must allege that: (1) the insurer delayed or denied payment of benefits to the insured, and (2) the delay or denial was without a reasonable basis. ... Plaintiff must allege facts, taken as true, that would plausibly support her conclusion that Allstate acted unreasonably, and because she has failed to do so, she has failed to adequately allege an essential element of each of her bad faith claims.

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

Cosby v. Geico General Insurance Company · filed 2024-06-25(1)(a)

Thus, to establish his claim for statutory bad faith breach of contract, Mr. Cosby must establish that (1) benefits were owed; and (2) GEICO “unreasonably” delayed or denied payment of a claim for benefits owed.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a claimant to plausibly allege that the insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis.

Kingsland v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-08-13(2)

By contrast, to prevail on a statutory claim, a plaintiff need only show that the “insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Fisher I, 419 P.3d at 990 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2)). ... Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that Defendant’s conduct was unreasonable.

Section 10-3-1115(2) requires a statutory bad faith claimant to show that the insurer delayed or denied payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis.

Kingsland v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2024-09-27(2)

By contrast, to prevail on a statutory claim, a plaintiff need only show that the “insurer delayed or denied authorizing payment of a covered benefit without a reasonable basis for that action.” Fisher I, 419 P.3d at 990 (quoting Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1115(2)).

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

LeClear v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2025-03-18(1)(b)(II)(B)(2)

To state a claim of unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115, an insured must allege 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 under section 10-3-1115 requires proof that the insurer’s delay or denial was objectively unreasonable under applicable industry standards.

Homeowners Association of Players Club Villas Townhomes, Inc., The v. QBE Insurance Corporation · filed 2025-03-21(1)(a)

Unreasonableness is an essential element of both bad faith claims under Colorado law and it is evaluated objectively, based on industry standards.

An insured claiming unreasonable delay or denial must show that the insurer delayed or denied benefits without a reasonable basis.

Fifer v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America · filed 2025-09-02(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.

An insured plausibly alleges unreasonable denial under § 10-3-1115 by alleging that the insurer denied coverage for covered hail damage without an adequate investigation or explanation.

Macias v. American Family Insurance Company · filed 2025-08-01(1)(a)–(b)

These well-pleaded factual allegations, and the reasonable inferences drawn from them, are sufficient to plausibly allege Defendant’s liability for statutory bad faith, i.e., that Defendant denied payment of a claim without a reasonable basis.

A timely unreasonable delay or denial claim under § 10-3-1115 may proceed even when the related breach of contract claim is barred by a contractual limitations period.

Power Engineering Co v. Federal Insurance Company · filed 2022-11-01

For these reasons, the Court agrees with the analysis in Brookshire Downs and predicts that the Colorado Supreme Court would hold that a timely claim for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116 may proceed even though the related breach of contract claim fails for being barred by the contractual limitations period.

A claim for unreasonable delay or denial under § 10-3-1115 flows from the insurance policy and is subject to its choice-of-law provision.

Apartment Income REIT Corp. v. Certain Underwriters At Lloyds London Subscribing To Policy No. B0713MEDTE2202301 · filed 2025-06-16

The Court thus agrees with the number of courts in this District ruling that a statutory claim flows from the insurance policy and is subject to a choice-of- law provision in that policy.

Section 10-3-1115 applies to unreasonable denials or delays after August 5, 2008, even when the insurance claim arose earlier.

Vaccaro v. American Family Insurance Group · filed 2012-01-19(1)(a)

Like the Kisseliman division, we conclude that the Statutes create a new right of action, separate from common law bad faith, which is available for acts occurring after August 5, 2008.