Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barriga, 2018 CO 42

In 2009 a fire damaged the Barrigas’ apartment building insured by American Family; insurer paid $209,816.43 during repairs but disputed later increased estimates.
American Family invoked the policy’s appraisal process; the appraiser awarded $322,141.79, which American Family paid net of prior payments, plus $5,435.44 for emergency board-up services.
The Barrigas sued for breach of contract, common-law bad faith, and statutory unreasonable delay/denial of benefits under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 10-3-1116(1).
A jury awarded $9,270 on breach of contract and $136,930.80 on the statutory claim; the trial court dissected the statutory award into $9,270 denied and $127,660.80 delayed benefits.
The trial court doubled the statutory award per § 10-3-1116(1) then offset by the amount it found was unreasonably delayed but ultimately paid, yielding a reduced statutory recovery; the court of appeals reversed.
The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: the statute’s text does not authorize reducing the § 10-3-1116(1) penalty by benefits unreasonably delayed but later paid, and double recovery principles do not bar concurrent contract and statutory recoveries where claims are factually separable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Barriga)	Defendant's Argument (American Family)	Held
Whether the § 10-3-1116(1) statutory award ("two times the covered benefit") must be reduced by benefits that were unreasonably delayed but later received outside litigation	The statute authorizes full recovery of two times the covered benefit; no text requires offset for delayed-but-paid benefits	Offset required: otherwise a delayed-but-paid claimant would be better off than one whose claim was fully denied; § 10-3-1116(4) prevents duplicative recoveries	Held: No offset. The statute’s plain text provides no basis to reduce the § 10-3-1116(1) award by benefits unreasonably delayed but ultimately paid.
Whether recovering both contract damages and the § 10-3-1116(1) penalty violates the rule against double recovery	Recovery on both is permissible because breach-of-contract and unreasonable-delay claims are factually and legally distinct	Recovering both would produce duplicative recovery for the same harm and should be limited	Held: Double recovery rule does not bar separate recoveries where the claims are factually separable; statute also preserves other actions in § 10-3-1116(4).

Goodman v. Heritage Builders, 390 P.3d 398 (Colo. 2017) (standard of review and statutory interpretation principles)
Pineda-Liberato v. People, 403 P.3d 160 (Colo. 2017) (give statutory text plain meaning and harmonize provisions)
Lexton-Ancira Real Estate Fund, 1972 v. Heller, 826 P.2d 819 (Colo. 1992) (double-recovery analysis where damages were not factually separable)
Carlson v. McCoy, 566 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1977) (treble statutory remedy distinguished; involved different facts regarding returned security deposit)
Mishkin v. Young, 107 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2005) (interpretation of remedial/penal statutory components in landlord-tenant context)