A running reference of Colorado Supreme Court cases affecting injured Coloradans and the insurance claims process — maintained by Malnar Injury Law (Stubborn Attorney) for reporters, fellow attorneys, and injured policyholders who want to understand how the state's highest court is shaping personal injury and insurance law.
Malnar Injury Law, together with co-counsel, represents James Berns in a case asking the Colorado Supreme Court to clarify what evidence injured policyholders may obtain when challenging an insurance company's post-lawsuit claim handling. The case centers on whether an insurer may broadly shield claim notes, evaluations, and other materials created after a bad-faith lawsuit is filed — or whether that evidence remains subject to ordinary discovery rules.
Berns was rear-ended in March 2020. After the at-fault driver's insurer paid its $25,000 policy limit, Berns sought underinsured-motorist benefits from his own insurer, State Farm, under a policy providing up to $250,000 in UM/UIM coverage. State Farm disputed the extent of his injuries and maintained his claim did not exceed the at-fault driver's coverage. Berns filed suit in 2024, asserting UM/UIM benefits, common-law bad faith, and unreasonable delay or denial claims. A federal magistrate judge later found that Colorado courts had reached inconsistent conclusions on the discovery question and certified it to the Colorado Supreme Court, which accepted the case in March 2026.
The case has drawn amicus support from United Policyholders and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association, both urging the Court to reject a categorical discovery shield. The Colorado Supreme Court has not yet decided the certified question. State Farm disputes Berns' claims, and no determination of liability has been made in the underlying case.
Additional Colorado Supreme Court cases touching injury and insurance law, tracked here as they develop. This section is updated as new cases are accepted or decided.
The Court will decide whether an insurer violated Colorado's policy-disclosure law by waiting nearly a year to disclose an at-fault driver's insurance policy, even though the policy ultimately turned out not to have been in effect at the time of the crash. Colorado law requires insurers to disclose potentially relevant policies within 30 days of a request, with a $100-per-day penalty for delay. A Denver district court and a divided Court of Appeals panel both sided with the injured claimant; the insurer has appealed.
The Court held that its 2018 decision in Schultz v. GEICO Casualty Company — which limits an insurer to the information it had when it denied a bad-faith claim — does not extend to ordinary breach-of-contract claims for benefits owed under a policy. As a result, an insurer defending a benefits claim (as opposed to a bad-faith claim) may seek updated medical records and request an independent medical exam, even after the claim was denied.
The Court ruled that an individual insurance claims adjuster is not personally liable for a claim denial made solely in the adjuster's capacity as an employee handling the policyholder's underinsured motorist claim, since the adjuster was not a party to the insurance contract itself.
Malnar Injury Law is available for comment on Colorado Supreme Court cases involving injury claims, insurance bad faith, and UM/UIM coverage disputes — including, but not limited to, our own pending case, Berns v. State Farm. If you're covering a Colorado Supreme Court decision or certified question in this space, we're glad to provide context or a quote on deadline.
If your own insurance company is disputing, delaying, or denying a claim after a crash, Malnar Injury Law can review what happened — including whether the handling of your claim raises the same kinds of issues now before the Colorado Supreme Court. Consultations are free, and we don't get paid unless we win.
Call (719) 888-95296799 Bismark Rd Ste. C, Colorado Springs, CO 80922 · Available 24/7