 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GEICO General Insurance Company v. Pinnacol Assurance9/12/2002
did not lie in tort, and it is not barred by the CGIA. Cingoranelli v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 658 P.2d 863 (Colo. 1983).
We disagree with Pinnacol that GEICO's equitable subrogation claim is analogous to the tort claim of equitable estoppel and is thus barred by the CGIA. Pinnacol's reliance on Olsen & Brown v. City of Englewood, 867 P.2d 96, 100 (Colo. App. 1993), aff'd, 889 P.2d 673 (Colo. 1995), is misplaced. There, the equitable estoppel claim was based on the tort of misrepresentation. Here, in contrast, neither misrepresentation nor equitable estoppel was alleged.
Accordingly, GEICO's claim for equitable subrogation is not a claim in tort, nor could it lie in tort. See City of Colorado Springs v. Conners, supra. Instead, the claim is a creature of equity whose purpose is to reach an equitable adjustment by securing the ultimate discharge of a debt by one who in equity and good conscience should pay it. See United Security Insurance Co. v. Sciarrota, 885 P.2d 273 (Colo. App. 1994).
We deny Pinnacol's request for attorney fees and costs under ยง 13-17-201, C.R.S. 2001.
The order is affirmed
JUDGE CASEBOLT and JUDGE WEBB concur.
|