Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5

Subsection (3)(a) caps noneconomic damages at $468,010, with an increase to $936,030 only upon clear and convincing evidence justifying the increase.

Houston v. United States Postal Service · filed 2021-02-17(3)(a)

Ms. Houston has already endured and will continue to endure pain for the rest of her life. She has lost stamina and will require more rest and physical inactivity than before the collision thus constituting a significant impairment of her quality of life. The statutory cap of $468,010 is determinative. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a), (c)(I)-(III). There is a statutory provision to increase that cap to $936,030 where the court finds by clear and convincing evidence a justification for that increase, but I find no circumstance in this case meets the standard or what I perceive to be its legislative intent. Colwell v. Mentzer Investments, Inc., 973 P.2d 631, 639 (Colo. App. 1998).

Section 13-21-102.5's purpose is to protect Colorado defendants from excessive noneconomic damages, not out-of-state defendants in cases brought by out-of-state plaintiffs.

Sanders v. Polaris Industries, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12(1)

The general assembly finds, determines, and declares that awards in civil actions for noneconomic losses or injuries often unduly burden the economic, commercial, and personal welfare of persons in this state; therefore, for the protection of the public peace, health, and welfare, the general assembly enacts this section placing monetary limitations on such damages for noneconomic losses or injuries. ... Thus, the purpose of § 13-21-102.5 is to protect Colorado defendants from excessive damages, not to protect out-of-state defendants from excessive liability in civil cases filed by out-of-state plaintiffs.

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a)(I) caps noneconomic damages at the inflation-adjusted statutory amount unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence a justification to exceed the cap.

Perez v. Sunbeam Products, Inc · filed 2025-05-29(3)(a)(I)

Ms. Perez’s non-economic damages may not exceed $468,010 unless the Court “finds justification by clear and convincing evidence” to exceed the cap. ... Therefore, the Court will reduce Ms. Perez’s non-economic damages to $468,010 as to each defendant.

Subsection (3)(a) caps noneconomic damages, excluding damages for physical impairment or disfigurement, at $250,000, but permits up to $500,000 upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence.

Garcia v. United States · filed 1988-10-21(3)(a)

In Colorado, noneconomic damages other than damages for physical impairment or disfigurement are limited to $250,000.00, or up to $500,000.00 on a showing of clear and convincing evidence. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a).

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a) generally caps noneconomic damages at $250,000 per party but allows the court to award up to $500,000 on clear and convincing evidence.

Hill v. United States · filed 1994-06-08(3)(a)

Colorado law generally limits the recovery of non-economic damages to $250,000 per party, subject to the court’s discretion to increase that amount to $500,000 based upon clear and convincing evidence. C.R.S. § 13-21-102.5(3)(a). I find that Tasha has suffered enormous pain and suffering and a manifest loss of enjoyment of life. I therefore find, by clear and convincing evidence, that Tasha is entitled to the payment of the maximum amount permissible under Colorado law, $500,000, for her non-economic losses.

Section 13-21-102.5 does not allow an estate to recover noneconomic damages because an estate cannot suffer harms such as emotional stress or loss of enjoyment of life.

Hill v. Boatright · filed 1995-02-21

Section 13-21-102.5, C.R.S. (1993 Cum. Supp.) defines non-economic loss or injury as “nonpecuniary harm for which damages are recoverable by the person suffering the direct or primary loss or injury, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of quality of life.” ... As personal representative of the estates, Hill cannot recover non-economic damages. The monetary damages awarded here directly benefit the estate, a legal entity. And, in our view, a legal entity such as an estate may not incur non-economie damages such as emotional stress or loss of enjoyment of life.

Section 13-21-102.5 permits a court to increase the noneconomic damages cap on clear and convincing evidence, but the award remains limited to the defendant’s pro rata share of liability.

Hoffman v. Ford Motor Company · filed 2010-03-04(3)(a)

Thus, the discretion of § 13-21-102.5 is bounded by the requirements § 13-21-111.5, and I cannot use the former to nullify the latter.

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a) permits noneconomic damages above $250,000 when justified by clear and convincing evidence, without requiring the trial court to make a specific finding using that standard.

Colwell v. Mentzer Investments, Inc. · filed 1998-04-16(3)(a)

While there must be a justification by clear and convincing evidence, the trial court is not required to make a specific finding of clear and convincing evidence. ... Thus, clear and convincing evidence supports the award in excess of $250,000. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the court’s refusal to reduce the award of noneconomic damages.

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a) provides the general cap on noneconomic damages and permits a higher cap when the evidence justifies it.

Warembourg v. Excel Elec., Inc. · filed 2020-07-09(3)(a)

Accordingly, the general cap on noneconomic damages, which can be doubled due to Warembourg’s “profound, severe, and life-altering” injuries, applies to this case.

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a)’s cap on noneconomic damages does not violate the Seventh Amendment because that amendment does not apply to the states.

Gebert v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · filed 2023-11-09(3)(a)

Because the Seventh Amendment has not been applied to the states, and because our state constitution does not guarantee the right to a civil jury trial, we conclude that the statutory damages cap is constitutional. Perceiving no abuse of the district court’s discretion in declining to exceed the cap, we conclude that the court properly capped Gebert’s noneconomic damages at the statutory limit.

Section 13-21-102.5 defines noneconomic loss as direct nonmonetary harm, including pain, emotional stress, and impaired quality of life.

Wierimaa v. Cheng · filed 2026-04-09(2)(b)

In enacting limitations on damages for noneconomic loss or injury, the legislature has defined a “[n]oneconomic loss or injury” as a nonpecuniary harm where the person suffered direct or primary loss or injury, including pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment to their quality of life. ... Although Cheng testified that she felt fear during the September 8 incident, she never developed that testimony or indicated that, at the time of the incident or thereafter, she experienced physical or mental pain, emotional distress (apart from the immediate fear), anguish, inconvenience, or humiliation, or that the incident impaired her quality of life.

Section 13-21-102.5(2)(b) includes pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of quality of life as noneconomic damages.

Cortez v. Castro · filed 2025-08-28(2)(b)

We also conclude that the district court erred by entering a directed verdict on damages because Cortez presented some evidence of both economic and noneconomic damages. See § 13-21-102.5(2)(b), C.R.S. 2025 (noneconomic damages include “pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, and impairment of the quality of life”). ... From this evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that Cortez is entitled to damages for pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, or impairment of his quality of life. See § 13-21-102.5(2)(b).

Damages for physical impairment and disfigurement are determined separately from other noneconomic damages and are not subject to the noneconomic damages cap.

Herrera v. Gene's Towing · filed 1992-02-27(5)

By such means, the limitation on recoverable damages contained in § 13-21-102.5(3)(a) and the unlimited recovery for physical impairment and disfigurement as provided for in § 13-21-102.5(5) can be harmonized.

Section 13-21-102.5(2)(b) covers nonpecuniary harm, so physical impairment is not necessarily included in its definition of noneconomic loss.

Dupont v. Preston · filed 2000-10-10(2)(b)

In addition, because physical impairment can involve either pecuniary or nonpecuniary loss, and the literal language of § 13-21-102.5 is applicable only to nonpecuniary harm, that is an additional reason specifically not to construe physical impairment as being necessarily included in the definition of non-economic losses set forth in § 13-21, 102.5(2)(b).

The noneconomic damages limit applies after liability is apportioned among joint tortfeasors.

Cooley v. Paraho Development Corp. · filed 1992-09-24(3)(a)

In Niemet v. General Electric Co., 843 P.2d 87 (Colo.App.1992), a panel of this court concluded that, before applying this statutory limit to an award for noneconomic damages, a court must first apportion liability based upon the relative degree of negligence among the joint tortfeasors. ... The decision in Niemet v. General Electric Co., supra, is dispositive of the issue raised here. The court's initial computation of the amount of the judgment to be entered for noneconomic damages was correct; it erred in changing that computation. Accordingly, the judgment for plaintiff for noneconomic damages must be increased by the sum of $20,000.

Section 13-21-102.5 caps each noneconomic damages award after liability is apportioned among those at fault.

Niemet v. General Electric Co. · filed 1993-01-04(3)(a)

Accordingly, we perceive no error in the trial court’s determination that liability should be apportioned pursuant to § 13-21-111.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) before damages for each award are capped pursuant to § 13-21-102.5, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A).

Section 13-21-102.5(3)(a) permits noneconomic damages up to $500,000 in qualifying cases, but that higher limit does not apply to wrongful death actions.

Aiken v. Peters · filed 1995-06-29(3)(a)

Here, then, the plain and unambiguous language of § 13-21-203(1) mandates that, in wrongful death cases, the provisions of § 13-21-102.5 that authorize the court to enter an award of damages for noneconomic losses up to $500,000 are to be disregarded.

Section 13-21-102.5(3)'s limits on noneconomic damages are constitutional.

Scharrel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1997-05-08(3)

Finally, we uphold the constitutionality of the limitations on the award of non-economic damages under § 13-21-102.5.

The noneconomic damages cap does not include prejudgment interest, which may be added to the capped award.

James v. Coors Brewing Co. · filed 1999-11-05(3)(a)

In accordance with the portion of this opinion concerning punitive damages, I conclude that the statutory cap is not inclusive of prejudgment interest.

Section 13-21-102.5(2)(b) treats pain and suffering as one category of noneconomic loss, distinct from other noneconomic losses.

Valdez v. Pringle · filed 2006-10-16(2)(b)

From these definitions, we conclude that, as set forth in § 13 — 21—102.5(2)(b), the General Assembly intended to categorize pain and suffering as a subset of noneconomic loss rather than as a synonym for it.

Section 13-21-102.5 limits noneconomic damages separately for each injured claimant, even when one defendant harmed several claimants.

Palmer v. Diaz · filed 2009-05-14(3)(a)

We thus conclude, contrary to Palmer's contention, that the statutory cap set forth in section 18-21-102.5 does not apply to limit a defendant's liability based upon the number of plaintiffs. Otherwise, a defendant could injure many people by the same tor-tious conduct and in essence receive a "group discount." Such an interpretation of section 13-21-102.5(8)(a) would have absurd consequences.

Section 13-21-102.5(6)(a)(I) limits when noneconomic damages are available for willful and wanton breach of contract, but does not restrict the types of contracts involved.

Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp. · filed 2012-07-19(6)(a)(I)

Though, as Sonitro} points out, section 13-21-102.5(6)(a)(I), C.R.S.2011, now limits the circumstances in which noneconomic damages are awardable for willful and wanton breach of contract, it does not limit the types of contracts as to which a party may seek recovery for a willful and wanton breach of contract.

Medical treatment or medication is not required to recover noneconomic damages for emotional distress under subsection (2)(b).

Arteaga-Torres v. Alcazar · filed 2026-06-18(2)(b)

Alcazar argues that $20,000 is excessive because Arteaga-Torres did not seek medical treatment or take medication for her stress. But as the district court noted, such treatment is not a prerequisite for recovery of noneconomic damages, which are intended to compensate a plaintiff for nonpecuniary harm. See § 13-21-102.5(2)(b).