Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) requires an action to be commenced within two years after the claim accrues and applies to claims arising on or after July 1, 1986.

Callaham v. First American Title Insurance Co. · filed 1992-08-20(1)(a)

The limitations period set forth in § 13-80-102(l)(a), C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6A) requires an action to be commenced within two years after the action accrues. This statute became effective July 1, 1986, and applies to claims for relief arising on or after that date.

Section 13-80-102(1)(h) gives a plaintiff two years to sue a public entity, even when the claim is based on the actions of an officer subject to a one-year limitations period.

Gallegos v. City of Monte Vista · filed 1998-05-28(1)(h)

Therefore, we conclude that, for an action brought against the public entity that is based on the actions of one of the listed individuals, the two-year limitations period in § 13 — 80—102(1)(h), rather than the one-year period contained in § 13 — 80—103(l)(c), is controlling.

Section 13-80-102's general two-year limitations period does not bar a child support reimbursement claim filed within that period.

In Re the Marriage of Smith · filed 2000-02-03(1)(i)

Although father contends that husband did not bring this action until he submitted his trial brief on July 22, 1997, the record shows that his initial motion requesting reimbursement of paid child support was filed on May 3, 1994, well within the asserted two-year period. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly determined that husband's claim was not barred under the general two-year statute of limitations.

The two-year limitation period for actions against governmental entities does not apply to contract claims when a longer contract limitation period governs.

Fishburn v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 1995-11-09(1)(h)

We therefore conclude that the shorter two-year limitation period of § 13-80-102(l)(h) is not applicable to the contract claims brought by plaintiffs against the city.

Section 13-80-102(1)(h) sets a two-year limit for inverse condemnation actions against governmental entities.

Bad Boys of Cripple Creek Mining Co. v. City of Cripple Creek · filed 2000-02-17(1)(h)

We also hold that § 13-80-102(l)(h) is the statute of limitation that applies to plaintiffs claim, not § 38-41-101. ... Consequently, it is a civil action against a governmental entity and is governed by § 13-80-102(l)(h).

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) supplies a two-year limitations period for claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 in Colorado.

Vaughn v. Krehbiel · filed 2005-04-11(1)(i)

In Colorado, the most applicable statute is the general two-year residual limitation found in C.R.S. § 13-80-102(l)(i).

Section 13-80-102(1)(h) bars noncompulsory claims against a governmental entity filed more than two years after they accrue, including claims assigned to the claimant.

Skyland Metro. Dist. v. MOUNTAIN WEST ENTERPRISE · filed 2007-06-14(1)(h)

Moreover, all the previous owners' claims accrued, at the latest, in May 2000, when the developers bought the land. This is more than two years before the counterclaims were filed, and because their claims were not compulsory counterclaims, we conclude the previous owners' claims that were assigned to the developers were barred by § 13-80-102(1)(h).

Section 13-80-102(1)(h) gives claims against the State of Colorado and the governor a two-year limitations period.

Garcia v. Harms · filed 2014-11-06(1)(h)

The two-year statute of limitations contained in section 13-80-102 applies to Garcia's remaining *567claims against the State of Colorado and Governor Hickenlooper. Therefore, those claims were timely filed, and the district court erred by dismissing them as time barred.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) requires a tort action to be filed by the second anniversary of accrual; C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) does not extend that deadline.

Williams v. Crop Production Services, Inc. · filed 2015-05-07(1)(a)

Plaintiff filed the complaint two years and one day after the acerual date, and urges us to apply C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) in computing the two-year statute of limitations period for tort actions under section 13-80-102(1)(a), C.R.S.2014. We conclude that C.R.C.P. 6(a)(1) does not apply to computation of the limitations period under that statutory section. ... Thus, a cause of action must be filed on or before the statutorily specified anniversary date following accrual of the action.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) sets a two-year limitations period for negligence claims under the Premises Liability Act.

Maldonado v. Pratt · filed 2016-11-17(1)(a)

The statute of limitations for a negligence claim under the PLA is two years.

Section 13-80-102(1) requires a construction defect claim to be brought within two years after it accrues.

Broomfield Senior Living Owner, LLC v. R.G. Brinkmann Co · filed 2017-03-09(1)

Once a CDARA claim accrues, any action must be brought within two years under § 13-80-102(1).

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) sets a two-year limitations period for civil theft claims.

Tisch v. Tisch · filed 2019-03-21(1)(a)

Therefore, we agree with the trial court that the timing of the Tisch siblings’ knowledge of their injuries was not subject to reasonable debate. And by filing their complaint on April 29, 2016, they were well within the relevant two- and three-year statute of limitations periods for both civil theft and breach of fiduciary duty.

Section 13-80-102 provides a two-year limitations period that applies to § 1983 claims brought in Colorado.

O'Connell v. Alejo · filed 2020-03-16

In Colorado, C.R.S. § 13-80-102 provides a two-year statute of limitations.

Section 13-80-102 supplies a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions, which applies to Rehabilitation Act claims brought in Colorado.

Slover v. University of Colorado · filed 2022-03-20

In Colorado, there is a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See C.R.S. § 13-80-102. ... Consequently, the Court denies the University’s request to dismiss this claim based on the statute of limitations. Her claim is timely in relation to the injury which forms the basis of this case.

Section 13-80-102(1)(g) sets a two-year limitations period for claims based on federal statutes that have no limitations period, effective July 1, 1987.

Merrigan v. Affiliated Bankshares of Colorado, Inc. · filed 1991-10-04(1)(g)

The Colorado legislature ... changed the statute of limitations effective July 1, 1987 to a two year limitations con claims based upon a federal statute that did not have a statute of limitations. Colo. Rev.Stat. § 13-80-102(l)(g). It has been held that the applicable statute of limitations is two years under the new statute.

Section 13-80-102 imposes a two year limitations period that would bar refiling in Colorado after dismissal.

In Re Ski Train Fire in Kaprun, Austria on November 11, 2000 · filed 2003-04-21

If this case is dismissed, however, plaintiffs will be unable to establish jurisdiction in Colorado because they will be barred from refiling in Colorado by the two year statute of limitations.

Section 13-80-102’s one-year limit for assault and battery does not govern a patient’s claim arising from the patient-physician relationship, even when the claim alleges battery.

Koch v. Sadler · filed 1988-04-21(1)(c)

We hold that it was the intent of the General Assembly in passing that statute to control all actions brought by a patient arising out of the patient-phy-cisian relationship. ... Thus, the trial court erred in applying the one-year statute governing assault and battery.

Section 13-80-102’s two-year limit for federal claims does not apply to a breach-of-contract-type ERISA contribution claim because it would discriminate against the federal claim.

Trustees of Carpenters & Millwrights Health Benefit Trust Fund v. Lillard & Clark Construction Co. · filed 1990-11-27(1)(g)

Although the Colorado statutes of limitation do not present such an egregious disparity between the time limits for federal and state actions, applying § 13-80-102(l)(g) in a breach of contract type ERISA action would result in discrimination against the federal claim.

Section 13-80-102’s two-year limitation period does not apply to tort claims arising before July 1, 1986; those claims are governed by the prior six-year period.

Cassidy v. Smith · filed 1991-03-28

We agree the trial court erred in applying § 13-80-102, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), rather than the six-year statute of limitations that was applicable to tort actions prior to July 1, 1986.

Section 13-80-102’s two-year limitation period does not govern judicial review of a final PERA Board decision.

Buzick v. Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n · filed 1992-09-24

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, we do not view ... as support for their contention that the two-year statute of limitations applies.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) sets a two-year limit for tort actions but does not bar the State’s claim to recover medical benefits it paid.

Grogan v. Taylor · filed 1994-08-08(1)(a)

Here, there is no specific provision that would make the two-year statute of limitations applicable to the state suing to recover medical benefits paid.

Section 13-80-102 bars recovery for bad faith insurance conduct that occurred more than two years before the complaint was filed.

Harmon v. Fred S. James & Co. of Colorado · filed 1994-11-17

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly held that § 13-80-102 barred recovery for conduct that occurred more than two years before the plaintiff filed her complaint.

Section 13-80-102(1)(g)’s two-year period does not govern a Section 301 claim for breach of a collective bargaining agreement; the three-year contract period applies.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local No. 7, AFL-CIO v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado · filed 2024-07-09(1)(g)

First, Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-80-102(g) provides that “[a]ll actions upon liability created by a federal statute where no period of limitation is provided in said federal statute” “must be commenced within two years after the cause of action accrues.” ... Having thoroughly considered the parties’ arguments, the Court finds that Colorado’s three-year statute of limitations for contract actions applies to the Union’s claim here.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) gives claims for tortious interference with prospective business advantage a two-year limitations period.

Tara Woods Ltd. Partnership v. Mae · filed 2010-08-12(1)(a)

The parties agree that, in Colorado, a claim for tortious interference with prospective business advantage is subject to a two-year statute of limitations. C.R.S. § 13-80-102(l)(a). The Plaintiff commenced this action in state court on March 11, 2009, and thus, the tortious interference with prospective advantage claim must have arisen no earlier than March 11, 2007.

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) gives a partner two years to bring an accounting claim when no other limitations period applies.

Tafoya v. Perkins · filed 1996-08-08(1)(i)

We therefore conclude that the applicable statute of limitations is § 13-80-102(l)(i), C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol 6A), which sets forth a two-year “catch-all” period of limitations for “all other actions of every kind for which no other period of limitation is provided.”

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) supplies the two-year limitations period for civil theft actions under § 18-4-405.

Michaelson v. Michaelson · filed 1996-09-03(1)(a)

Accordingly, because the action here is governed by the rules of civil procedure, and the General Assembly otherwise failed to designate a specific limitation period for the action, the statute of limitations provided for torts generally, found at § 13-80-102(l)(a), applies to the action established in § 18-4-405.

Section 13-80-102 supplies a two-year limitations period for civil rights actions brought in Colorado.

Boles v. Neet · filed 2004-08-20

Defendant is correct that the Colorado two-year statute of limitations, C.R.S. § 13-80-102, is applicable to this case.

Civil theft claims are subject to a two-year limitations period under section 13-80-102(1).

Sullivan v. Westphal · filed 2026-03-26(1)

Claims for civil theft are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See Tisch v. Tisch, 2019 COA 41, ¶ 39; § 13-80-102(1), C.R.S. 2025.

The two-year limitation period does not bar a separate claim for new contamination when underground leakage ceased for a significant period and then recurred.

Kohler v. Germain Investment Co. · filed 1996-09-26(1)(a)

Following discovery, Conoco and the Ger-main defendants each moved for summary judgment based upon the two-year statute of limitations contained in § 13-80-102(l)(a), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). ... We conclude that if, as here, underground leakage of petroleum hydrocarbons ceases for a significant period of years and then reoccurs, a new and different claim accrues to the injured landowner for a subsequent injury. Stated another way, we view the record in this ease as containing allegations of two distinct tort claims — one accruing in 1989 that is time barred and one in 1991 that is not.

The two-year tort limitations period in § 13-80-102(1)(a) does not apply to a claim brought under the No-Fault Act; the three-year period in § 13-80-101(1)(j) applies.

Amco Insurance Co. v. Rockwell · filed 1997-04-10(1)(a)

Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiffs claim was covered by § 13-80-102(l)(a), C.R.S. (1996 Cum.Supp.) the general two-year limitations period for tort actions and that plaintiffs failure to commence the action within that period warranted dismissal. ... The trial court determined that the two-year provision applied to plaintiffs claim and granted defendant’s summary judgment motion. ... Under these circumstances, we conclude that plaintiffs claim was intertwined with the No-Fault Act and was brought “under” it. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations in § 13 — 80—101(1)(j) applies and the trial court’s ruling to the contrary was error.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a)'s two-year limit does not apply to a tort action for bodily injury arising out of the plaintiff's use of a motor vehicle.

Gonzales v. City and County of Denver · filed 2000-04-24(1)(a)

If it was such an action, then, by the unambiguous language of the statute, § 13-80-102(l)(a) is inapplicable, and § 13-80-101(l)(n)(I) applies, regardless of ... whether another shorter limitations period may also apply.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a)'s two-year period does not apply to tort actions for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle, even if the alleged tortfeasor was not using one.

City and County of Denver v. Gonzales · filed 2001-01-16(1)(a)

At the same time the General Assembly enacted the three-year statute, section 13-80-101(1)(n), it amended the two-year statute, section 13-80-102(1)(a), to reinforce its meaning: "this paragraph (a) does not apply to any tort action arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle as set forth in section 13-80-101(1)(n)." § 13-80-102(1)(a); ch. 848, see. 2, § 13-80-102, 1994 Colo. Sess. Laws 2824, 2825. Thus the legislature chose language in two statutory sections emphasizing its intent to apply the three-year period to all tort actions for bodily injury or property damage involving a motor vehicle.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) gives a professional malpractice tort claim a two-year limitation period after accrual.

Sender v. Porter (In Re Porter McLeod, Inc.) · filed 1999-03-17(1)(a)

If the November 30,1994 filing date of the involuntary petition is the date of accrual, pursuant to § 13 — 80—102(l)(a)(l), the Trustee was required to file the professional malpractice complaint by November 30, 1996.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a) requires a professional negligence claim to be brought within two years of accrual.

Prospect Dev. Co. v. Holland & Knight, LLP · filed 2018-07-26(1)(a)

Prospect was required to bring the professional negligence claim within two years of its accrual, section 13-80-102(1)(a), C.R.S. 2017, and the breach of fiduciary duty claim within three years of its accrual, section 13-80-101(1)(f), C.R.S. 2017.

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) provides a two-year limitations period for a declaratory judgment action when no specific limitations period applies.

Harrison v. Pinnacol Assurance · filed 2004-03-11(1)(i)

We discern no statute of limitations specifically applicable to declaratory judgment actions and therefore apply the two-year catchall statute of limitations.

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) applies a two-year limitations period to declaratory judgment actions.

Hatkoff v. Accutrend · filed 2024-11-21(1)(i)

We apply a two-year statute of limitations under section 13-80-102(1)(i) to actions seeking a declaratory judgment.

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) generally gives declaratory judgment claims a two-year limitations period.

Three Circle v. Public Service · filed 2025-02-27(1)(i)

And declaratory judgment claims are generally subject to a two-year limitations period. See § 13-80-102(1)(i), C.R.S. 2024 (two-year limitations period for actions for which no specific limitations period is provided); ... Accordingly, the declaratory judgment claim was time barred.

Section 13-80-102(1)(a)’s two-year tort limitations period does not govern claims based on fraud or misrepresentation; the three-year period in § 13-80-101(c) controls.

In Re Qwest Communications International, Inc. Securities Litigation · filed 2005-09-12(1)(a)

In essence, the defendants argue that the two year statute of limitations defined in § 13-80-102(l)(a), C.R.S., applies to these state law claims. ... Thus, the three year statute of limitations of § 13-80-101(c) controls.

Section 13-80-102(1)(h) imposes a two-year limit on inverse condemnation claims, running from when the alleged harm is apparent.

Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Board of County Commissioners · filed 2007-03-30(1)(h)

The county further argues that the inverse condemnation claim is barred because the two year statute of limitations has expired. § 13-80-102(l)(h), C.R.S. I agree. ... Here, the church’s allegations demonstrate that any inverse condemnation claim based on the conservation easement accrued in 1998. Therefore, the church’s inverse condemnation claim must be dismissed because it is barred by the two year statute of limitations.

Section 13-80-102’s two-year limitations period does not apply to third-party construction defect claims brought under section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II).

In re Goodman v. Heritage Builders · filed 2017-02-27

Consequently, the phrase “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1),” plainly and unambiguously precludes the application of both the statute of limitations in section 13-80-102 and statute of repose in section 13-80-104(1)(a) to third-party claims made pursuant to section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II).

The limitations period for a state malicious prosecution claim runs from the favorable termination of the prosecution.

Kimball v. Fox · filed 2023-02-22(1)(a)

First, the Court agrees with Mr. Kimball that his state malicious prosecution claim did not accrue until August 2020, when he was acquitted and the state court proceedings terminated in his favor (ECF No. 28 at 15; see also ECF No. 1-19 at 15 ¶ 48). See also Schenck, 802 P.2d at 1133; Thompson v. Maryland Cas. Co., 84 P.3d 496, 504 (Colo. 2004). Mr. Kimball initiated this action in December 2021 (See, e.g., ECF No. 1-19 at 1). As such, Mr. Kimball’s state malicious prosecution claim falls within the applicable statute of limitations and is not time-barred. See C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a); see also C.R.S. § 13-21-131(5).

Section 13-80-102(1)(i) provides a two-year limitations period for personal injury actions that applies to § 1981 claims in Colorado.

Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc. · filed 1998-07-02(1)(i)

Because that provision does not specify a time period in which claims must be brought, we look to the analogous state law for a limitations period, see 42 U.S.C. § 1988(a), and apply Colorado's residual two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions. See Reynolds v. School Dist. No. 1, 69 F.3d 1523, 1532 (10th Cir. 1995) (applying Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(1)(i)).

Section 13-80-102 supplies a two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims in Colorado.

Nunn v. Relich · filed 2016-03-11

Colorado law establishes the relevant two-year statute of limitations for Mr. Nunn’s § 1983 claims. See Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 1999) (“State statutes of limitations applicable to general personal injury claims supply the limitations periods for § 1983 claims.”); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (two-year statute of limitations). The incident giving rise to Mr. Nunn’s complaint occurred in July 2013, more than two years before he filed his complaint in September 2015.

Section 13-80-102 provides a two-year limitations period for Bivens actions arising in Colorado.

Dalis v. United States · filed 2000-03-31

Colorado provides for a two-year statute of limitations for such actions.

Section 13-80-102 supplies a two-year limitations period for Bivens claims arising in Colorado.

Matthews v. Wiley · filed 2010-09-13(1)(a), (g)

In Colorado, the limitation on personal injury claims is two years. ... Further, as Mr. Matthews’ transfer to ADX in 1995 was clearly a single discrete event, the continuing violation doctrine does not apply.

Section 13-80-102(1)(k) gives a claim for treble damages for a dishonored check two years from accrual to be filed.

ia v. Wozniak · filed 2020-01-16(1)(k)

The latter claim has a statute of limitations of two years from the date the cause of action accrues. § 13–80–102(1)(k), C.R.S. 2019. In its complaint, Spiremedia alleged that the statutory violation occurred on or around February 12, 2016, when Wozniak’s check was allegedly dishonored. Thus, the statute of limitations on Spiremedia’s statutory claim had run by February 12, 2018, just four days after the complaint was filed.

Section 13-80-102’s two-year limit for tort actions does not apply to wage claims arising by statute rather than tort.

Sobolewski v. Boselli & Sons, LLC · filed 2018-09-21

Thus, these claims are neither based in contract nor tort, making inapplicable the general limitations on actions ... found in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-101 (3 years for contract actions) and Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (2 years for tort actions).