Colorado § 10-4-623 - Conditions and exclusions.

§ 10-4-623. Conditions and exclusions.

(1) The coverage described in section 10-4-620 may be subject to conditions and exclusions that are not inconsistent with the requirements of this part 6.

(2) The coverage described in section 10-4-620 may also be subject to exclusions where the injured person:

(a) Sustains injury caused by his or her own intentional act; or

(b) Is operating a motor vehicle as a converter without a good faith belief that he or she is legally entitled to operate or use such vehicle.

(3) (a) The coverage described in section 10-4-620 is conditioned upon the insurer offering coverages pursuant to section 10-4-609 (1).

(b) The insurer shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of section 10-4-609 (1) and the exclusion of the insured from uninsured motorist coverage shall be deemed valid if the named insured has rejected the uninsured motorist coverage in writing. Such exclusion shall be continuing until such time as the insured requests that the insurer provide uninsured motorist coverage. The insurer shall not have a duty to offer uninsured motorist coverage after receiving the insured's written request for exclusion even though:

(I) The vehicles insured under the policy have changed; or

(II) The policy is reinstated, transferred, substituted, amended, altered, modified, replaced, or renewed.

(c) The insurer shall be deemed to have complied with section 10-4-609 (1) and the insured's uninsured motorist coverage shall be deemed valid if the insurer has offered coverage at available levels and the insured has selected coverage of a certain value. The insurer shall not have a duty to offer changes in uninsured motorist coverage to the insured even though:

(I) The vehicles covered under the policy have changed; or

(II) The policy is reinstated, transferred, substituted, amended, altered, modified, replaced, or renewed; except that, if there is an increase in bodily injury liability limits and the limits of the uninsured motorist coverage would be less than such limits, the insurer shall offer new uninsured motorist coverage to the insured pursuant to section 10-4-609 (2).

Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1562, § 3, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section was originally numbered as § 10-4-620 in House Bill 03-1188 but has been renumbered on revision for ease of location.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "The Responsibility of the Insurer Once a Driver is Given Initial Permission", see 15 Colo. Law. 1041 (1986). For article, "Über Problems: Ride-Sharing Exclusions in Personal Automobile Insurance Policies", see 47 Colo. Law. 46 (Aug.-Sept. 2018).

Annotator's note. Since this section is similar to § 10-4-712 as it existed prior to the 2003 repeal of part 7 of article 4 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.

"Household exclusion" clause invalid because it is neither authorized by statute nor in harmony with the legislative purpose of this act. Meyer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo. 1984) (decided prior to 1986 amendment).

Household exclusion clauses in automobile insurance policies issued after effective date of § 10-4-418 are valid, and the provision in that section stating that exclusion clauses are compatible with state public policy applies prospectively. Coffman v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 884 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1994).

Exclusion for bodily injury to employees that was intended to avoid duplication of benefits available under the Workers' Compensation Act is enforceable even when the employer failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance because coverages required under § 10-4-706 can be excluded under subsection (1) of this section so long as the exclusion is not contrary to the public policy expressed in § 10-4-702 to avoid inadequate compensation, and injured employee had a remedy under § 8-43-408 of the Workers' Compensation Act. Canal Ins. Co. v. Nix, 7 P.3d 1038 (Colo. App. 1999).

Subsection (1) of this section and § 10-4-620 deal with mandated minimum liability coverages and have no application to the crime exclusion in the insurance policy because the exclusion applies to supplemental coverage that is in addition to, and separate from, the mandatory coverage. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 224 P.3d 336 (Colo. App. 2009), aff'd, 255 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2011).

Exclusion in insurance policy for bodily injury or property damage caused intentionally by or at the direction of an insured does not violate the mandatory liability insurance statute or the state's public policy. Gov't Employees Ins. Co. v. Brown, 739 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (D. Colo. 2010).

Factual determination made during workers' compensation hearing does not bar a determination of claimant's entitlement to PIP benefits under doctrine of collateral estoppel. Determination that claimant was driving employer's vehicle outside scope of employment not determinative of whether she was acting as converter of the vehicle and therefore might not be entitled to PIP benefits. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Messina, 874 P.2d 1058 (Colo. 1994).

The business use delivery exclusion is invalid and unenforceable under the no-fault act because it is not authorized by statute or in harmony with the legislative purpose of mandating liability coverage to avoid inadequate compensation. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Mid-Century Ins. Co., 18 P.3d 854 (Colo. App. 2001).