Court Opinion

ID: 9546952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:38:29.515874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:05.116774
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice ROVIRA
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
The majority holds that Sara Cox’s claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(1)0), 6A C.R.S. (1987), as opposed to the two-year statute of limitations governing tort actions in section 13-80-102, 6A C.R.S. (1987), *226because her claim against Dilworth Jones is an action under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (Act). I believe that a negligence claim arising out of an automobile collision is not brought under the Act. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to part II of the majority opinion.
I
Section 13 — 80—101(1)(j), provides that all actions brought under the Act shall be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrues. The majority holds that Cox’s claim comes under the Act for purposes of section 13-80-101(1)(j), because she has insurance, and as an insured her “claim is so intertwined with section 10-4-714 of the Act her claim falls ‘under’ the Act” and, therefore, her claim is governed by the three-year statute of limitations. Maj. op. at 223. I disagree. An action brought by a person injured in an automobile accident against another driver alleging negligence is a common law tort action. The Act is intended to govern first-party claims, such as actions between an insured and that person’s insurance company. In this case, the Act would govern claims between Cox and her insurance company. The Act does not govern third-party tort actions arising from automobile accidents, and it does not create a cause of action in tort. The Act merely conditions a claimant’s right to recover until one of the statutory thresholds set forth in section 10-4-714, 4A C.R.S. (1987), is met.
The Act must be read in its entirety to carry out the intention of the General Assembly. Marquez v. Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 620 P.2d 29, 31 (Colo.1980). Throughout the Act, there is a focus on protection of insureds in their relationship with their own insurance company. The purpose of the Act is to avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents, section 10-4-702, 4A C.R.S. (1987), to provide claimants with a direct claim in contract against their insurance company if it fails to pay or delays payment of benefits, and to make the insured’s insurance company liable for attorneys fees and under certain circumstances obligated to pay treble damages if it fails to pay benefits when due. § 10-4-708, 4A C.R.S. (1987). Thus, the Act establishes a statutory framework for protection of insureds as against their insurer, and provides the basis for a cause of action against the insurers who fail to comply with the terms of the insurance policies they sell.
The Act does not abolish common law tort actions involving motor vehicles, nor does it contain any language creating tort actions. The majority contends that “[a]c-tions brought by an insured against a third-party tortfeasor ‘for damages for bodily injury caused by a motor vehicle accident’ are allowed by section 10-4-714, 4A C.R.S. (1987), only in certain cases” and concludes that these limited actions are brought under the Act. Maj. op. at 221-222. The language in section 10-4-714, however, does not authorize or prohibit one from bringing an action, but merely conditions recovery in certain cases. One may bring an action for bodily injuries, but one may not recover without meeting one of the threshold requirements of section 10-4-714. See maj. op. at 225. Because the Act specifically conditions only recovery for bodily injury, and does not authorize the cause of action, I do not find that Cox’s claim falls under the Act. Such an interpretation in no way impedes the intent of the General Assembly to avoid inadequate compensation to victims of automobile accidents, as two years is not an unreasonable time in which to file a negligence claim. Dove v. Delgado, 808 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Colo.1991).
The three-year statute of limitations in section 13-80-101(1)0 pertains to claims between Cox and her insurance company. Such claims are distinct in character from tort claims. Cingoranelli v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 658 P.2d 863, 868 (Colo.1983). Claims under the Act by insureds against their insurer are contractual or quasi-contractual. Id. at 869. Because of the contractual nature of such claims, the General Assembly provided a three-year statute of limitations for them, consistent with the statutes of limitations for other contract actions. The General Assembly *227did not intend to include tort actions within this three-year statute of limitations.
The majority relies on Troxell v. Trammell, 730 S.W.2d 525 (Ky.1987), to support its position that Cox’s claim arises under the Act. Maj. op. at 222. In Troxell, in determining the statute of limitations for an injury in a motor vehicle accident, the Supreme Court of Kentucky applied the two-year statute of limitations provided by the state No Fault Act, rather than the one-year personal injury statute of limitations. The Kentucky No Fault statute is similar to ours in that it conditions recovery on the claimant’s ability to meet one of the specified threshold requirements. Ky. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 304.39-060(2)(b) (Mi-chie/Bobbs-Merrill 1988). The Kentucky statute, however, is distinguishable from our statute, as it expressly abolishes tort liability in some instances. “Tort liability with respect to accidents occurring in this Commonwealth and arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle is ‘abolished’tor damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease to the extent the basic reparation benefits provided in this subtitle are payable therefor ” Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 304.39-060(2)(a) (Michie/Bobbs-Merrill 1988) (emphasis added). As stated earlier, the Colorado Act does not abolish tort liability, but merely conditions recovery.
As previously noted, the majority finds Cox’s claim so intertwined with the threshold provisions of the Act that it falls under the Act. Section 10-4-715, 4A C.R.S. (1987), provides that the threshold provisions of the Act do not apply to actions against a negligent driver who is not actually covered by a complying auto policy.1 Therefore, under the majority’s rationale, a three-year statute of limitations would apply to a claim against a tortfeasor with insurance, while the shorter two-year statute of limitations would apply to claims against an uninsured motorist. To allow this result would lead to an uninsured motorist, who has not complied with the law, having the advantage of protection from suit provided by a shorter statute of limitations, while a law abiding motorist would be subject to a longer statute of limitations. Having such inconsistent results for the uninsured and the insured, and rewarding the driver who is uninsured, cannot have been the intent of the legislature.
Further supporting my conclusion that the legislature did not intend the three-year statute of limitations to apply to tort actions arising from motor vehicle accidents is that the threshold provisions in section 10-4-714 apply only to claims for bodily injury. Hence, under the majority analysis, the same cause of action would create two statutes of limitations. A claim for bodily injury, arising out of an automobile accident in which one party had a complying auto policy, would fall under the three-year statute of limitations, while a claim for property damage arising from the same cause of action would fall under the two-year statute of limitations.2 There is no reason to assume that the General Assembly intended there to be two different statutes of limitations for motor vehicle accidents. This unusual result should not be permitted, unless the legislative intent plainly expresses otherwise. See City & County of Denver v. Holmes, 156 Colo. 586, 590, 400 P.2d 901, 903 (1965).
Finally, there are instances in which a person injured in a two-car accident has claims against persons other than the own*228er of the other vehicle, such as the unauthorized driver of the other car or a manufacturer. If there were different statutes of limitations for these claims, it would lead to obvious inconsistencies and litigation problems.
Section 10-7-714 addresses the threshold which must be met to allow recovery in a tort action; it is not determinative of which statute of limitations applies. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to part II of the majority opinion.

. Section 10-4-715 states:
Nothing in this part 7 shall be construed to limit the right to maintain an action in tort by either a provider of direct benefits ... or by a person who has been injured or damaged as a result of an automobile accident against an alleged tortfeasor where such alleged tort-feasor was ... required to be covered under [the Act, but] was not, at the time of the occurrence of the alleged tortious conduct, actually covered....

. Although there are no Colorado cases expressing that a simultaneous injury to person and property gives rise to a single cause of action, the majority of jurisdictions (35 states) follow that approach. Andrea G. Nadel, Annotation, Simultaneous Injury to Person and Property As Giving Rise to Single Cause of Action—Modem Cases, 24 A.L.R.4A 646 (1983). Neither the Colorado statutes nor the Colorado court rules treat a claim for personal injury and a claim for property damage arising out of the same accident as separate causes of action.