 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allstate Insurance Company v. Huizar6/10/2002
general rule. See § 13-17-101, 5 C.R.S. (2001).
In this case, litigation over the validity of the previously untested trial de novo provision of the insurance policy was clearly not groundless. Of the ten judges considering the issue, five found no violation of public policy, and but for the final, discretionary review in this court, Ms. Huizar would not have succeeded at all. Despite having wide latitude in the matter, see § 13-17-101(1), the trial court did not find that any particular behavior of Allstate violated section 13-17-101. It merely agreed with Huizar that the express provisions of the contract entitled her to the award. In the absence of findings that Allstate's reliance on the provisions of its insurance policy was substantially frivolous, groundless, or vexatious, no statutory or existing policy exception to the general rule permits an award of attorney fees.
III.
Because the specific language of the insurance contract cannot be interpreted to permit an award of attorney fees under the circumstances of this case and neither the statutes nor legislatively expressed policy considerations relied upon in Huizar I create an exception to the rule that each party in a contract action bear its own legal expenses, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|