Opinion ID: 163683
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Colorado’s Survival Statute

Text: While the parties were litigating this case in district court, Mr. Salazar died. Mr. Salazar’s wife, Mrs. Salazar, moved the district court to substitute her as a plaintiff in her capacity as executor of Mr. Salazar’s estate. The district court granted the motion. The Board subsequently argued before the district court that Colorado’s “Survival Statute bars [Mr. Salazar’s estate] from recovering damages for Mr. Salazar’s emotional distress because Mr. Salazar’s breach of fiduciary duty claim sounds in tort and is based upon personal injuries.” The district court agreed, holding Mr. Salazar’s estate could not recover emotional distress damages on its breach of fiduciary duty claim; however, the district court also concluded the estate could recover emotional distress damages on its willful and wanton breach of contract claim. The Board argues on appeal the district court erred in allowing the estate to recover emotional distress damages on its willful and wanton breach of contract claim. It believes Colorado’s “Survival Statute should also bar [the estate’s] breach of contract claim for emotional distress damages.” We review this question of law de novo. See Dang v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 175 F.3d 1186, 1189 (10th Cir. 1999). -18- In “tort actions based upon personal injury,” Colorado’s survival statute prohibits the recovery of “damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement” following the death of the person so injured. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-101(1) (1997). The statute “is in derogation of the common law and thus must be strictly construed.” Estate of Burron v. Edwards, 594 P.2d 1064, 1065 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). Since the statute prohibits recovery of “damages for pain, suffering, or disfigurement” only in “tort actions,” the plain language of the statute does not bar Mr. Salazar’s estate from recovering damages for Mr. Salazar’s emotional distress under a willful and wanton breach of contract claim. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-101(1). The Board argues as significant, however, emotional distress damages can also be recovered in tort actions. It claims “the very nature of the emotional distress damages is tort-based.” It claims we should interpret the survival statute to bar emotional distress damages in all cases. We disagree. The Board’s argument ignores the plain language of the statute. 7 We therefore 7 The Board also argues the economic loss rule is analogous to the facts of this case and should prevent Mr. Salazar’s estate from recovering emotional distress damages on its willful and wanton breach of contract claim. Under Colorado law, the economic loss rule prevents “a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty ... [from] asserting a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.” Town of Alma v. Azco Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1264 (Colo. 2000). The economic loss rule does not operate to prevent an -19- conclude the district court did not err in allowing Mr. Salazar’s estate to recover emotional distress damages on its willful and wanton breach of contract claim.