 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colby v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.6/15/1995
as plaintiff contends, that the two statutes may be read as authorizing payment of rehabilitation expenses in excess of $50,000 so long as all benefits under the policy do not exceed the $100,000 maximum contained in § 10-4-710. The statutes may also be read, on the other hand, as addressing the minimum coverage for a complying policy under § 10-4-706 and additional coverages under § 10-4-710 which must be offered if the insured is willing to pay additional premiums.
Resolution of the issue before us therefore necessarily depends upon the intent of the General Assembly in adopting the presumption in § 10-4-706(1)(c)(II). Specifically, the issue is whether the presumption applies to dollars, years, or both. We conclude that the presumption applies to years only.
In resolving the issue before us, we must give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. If the meaning of the statutes is unclear as in this case, we may resort to other aids in statutory construction including legislative history. Krieg v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 686 P.2d 1331 (Colo. 1984); see also City of Apsen v. Meserole, 803 P.2d 950 (Colo. 1990).
The No-Fault Act was first adopted by the 49th General Assembly in 1973. Prior to its adoption and pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution No. 7, a report by a committee of legislators was prepared and presented on behalf of the legislative council to the General Assembly. See Colorado Legislative Council, Research Publ. #190, Committee on Automobile Insurance (1972).
The committee's report consisted of a narrative Discussion addressing the concerns relative to automobile insurance and tort recovery in this state and the impact upon the motoring public. A minority report also addresses these issues. The majority report, however, also included a proposed No-Fault Act.
This proposed act contained language substantially in the form of the 1973 statute relative to recovery of rehabilitation expenses. It also contained a provision similar to the above- quoted § 10-4-710, except that no dollar limit was included in that version relative to the coverage that may be afforded in an automobile policy.
In different locations in the majority report, the authors indicate that under the proposed act:
Rehabilitation Coverage. The injured person would receive compensation up to $25,000 [now
$50,000] for rehabilitation procedures, or treatment and occupational training provided within five years after the injury . . . . Colorado Legislative Council, Research Publ. #190, supra, at 7 & 23-24 (emphasis added).
Following adoption of the No-Fault Act, we note that, in at least three decisions, our supreme court has indicated in dictum that § 10-4-706 imposes a cap on payment of rehabilitation expenses. See Sulzer v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 794 P.2d 1006, 1009 (Colo. 1990)("This [rehabilitation] benefit is available for a period of five years after the accident and is limited to a total of $50,000."); Krieg v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., supra, at 1333 (1973 version of § 10-4-706 requires the insurance policy to provide a minimum of "compensation up to $25,000 for rehabilitative care and treatment rendered within five years after the accident"); see also Cingoranelli v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 658 P.2d 863 (Colo. 1983) (fn. 5).
Further, in the declaration made in connection with a 1994 amendment to th
Page 1 2 3 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|