Opinion ID: 167743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Colorado law

Text: 41 In this diversity case, we apply Colorado law and interpret insurance policies as a Colorado court would. Farmington Cas. Co. v. Duggan, 417 F.3d 1141, 1142 (10th Cir.2005). We interpret the insurance contract as a matter of law, and we review de novo the district court's conclusions of law. 42 Under an all-risk policy, once the insured demonstrates a loss to the property covered by the policy, the insurance carrier has the burden of proving that the proximate cause of the loss was excluded by the policy language. Novell v. Am. Guar. and Liability Ins. Co., 15 P.3d 775, 778 (Colo.Ct.App.1999). The burden is on the insurer to establish the applicability of an exclusion from coverage. Any exclusion must be clear and specific to be enforceable. Fire Ins. Exchange v. Bentley, 953 P.2d 1297, 1301 (Colo.Ct.App.1998). 43 To obtain the benefit of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion applies and is not subject to any other reasonable interpretation. See American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 816 P.2d 952, 953 (Colo.1991). If the insurer shows that an exclusion applies, [t]he burden then shifts back to the insured to prove the applicability of an exception to the exclusion. Public Serv. Co. of Colo. v. Wallis and Cos., 955 P.2d 564, 568 (Colo.Ct.App.1997), rev'd on other grounds by 986 P.2d 924 (Colo.1999).