24CA0954
Colo. Ct. App.May 29, 2025Background
- Courtney McCurdy purchased a trailer that had previously been declared a total loss by an insurer in Michigan and subsequently auctioned multiple times through Copart, Inc., ultimately to various dealers and then to McCurdy via Scarpa Motors.
- The trailer was consistently sold with a clean title and without sufficient disclosures regarding prior accident and frame damage, even though Copart had agreed with the insurer to title the trailer per state guidelines.
- After experiencing issues with the trailer and discovering prior undisclosed damage, McCurdy experienced financial loss and emotional distress, leading her to sue Copart and others involved in the trailer’s sales chain.
- McCurdy alleged fraudulent nondisclosure/concealment and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) against Copart and sought significant damages.
- The trial court jury found in favor of McCurdy on both claims, awarding $700,000 in damages, later trebled by the court under the CCPA, but Copart appealed on multiple grounds including lack of privity, improper jury instructions, excessive damages, and lack of public impact under the CCPA.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed McCurdy's standing and the fraudulent nondisclosure verdict, but reversed the CCPA verdict for lack of significant public impact, and remanded to adjust the judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Sue Copart | Privity not required for fraud/CCPA; she was harmed | Lack of privity/exculpatory clause bars standing | McCurdy had standing |
| Directed verdict on Fraudulent Nondisclosure | Copart intended to mislead by not disclosing title | No sufficient evidence of intent to defraud | Denial of verdict proper |
| Directed verdict on CCPA claim | Copart’s deceptive practices had public impact | No evidence of significant public impact | Directed verdict should have been granted |
| Jury instruction on Colorado/Michigan salvage law | Instructions necessary due to testimony confusion | Instructions misleading/improper under pleading rules | No abuse of discretion by trial court |
| Excessive damages (noneconomic) | Emotional distress justified jury award | No substantial evidence for noneconomic damages | Jury award supported by sufficient evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Schnell v. Gustafson, 638 P.2d 850 (Colo. App. 1981) (privity not always required for nondisclosure claims)
- Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Rhino Lining, 62 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2003) (public impact requirement under CCPA)
- Hall v. Walter, 969 P.2d 224 (Colo. 1998) (outlines CCPA claim requirements)
- Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 265 P.3d 456 (Colo. 2011) (jury discretion regarding damages)