Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
2018 CO 44
Colo.2018Background
- Homeowners denied/reduced hail-damage payout; they assigned their claim to contractor Rooftop Restoration, Inc. (Rooftop).
- Rooftop sued insurer American Family for breach of contract and for unreasonable delay or denial of insurance benefits under § 10-3-1116(1).
- Rooftop filed suit more than one year after insurer’s last payment; insurer claimed the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-103(1)(d) (penalties).
- District court certified the question whether § 13-80-103(1)(d)’s one-year limitations period applies to claims under § 10-3-1116(1).
- Colorado Supreme Court accepted certification and reviewed statutory interpretation de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 10-3-1116(1) claims are subject to the one-year limitations period in § 13-80-103(1)(d) | Rooftop: § 10-3-1116(1) is not a "penalty" and thus not governed by the one-year limit | American Family: § 10-3-1116(1) is penal in nature so the one-year penalty limitations period applies | Court: No — § 10-3-1116(1) is not an "action for any penalty" as used in § 13-80-103(1)(d); one-year limit does not apply |
| Whether the Kruse three-part penal test controls the analysis | Rooftop: statutory text and scheme govern; Kruse test should not displace clear legislative intent | American Family: Kruse test shows § 10-3-1116(1) is penal and supports one-year limit | Court: Kruse test is secondary; apply legislative intent from statutory text and scheme first; Kruse only where intent is unclear |
Key Cases Cited
- Kruse v. McKenna, 178 P.3d 1198 (Colo. 2008) (articulated three-part test for identifying penal statutes)
- Palmer v. A.H. Robins Co., 684 P.2d 187 (Colo. 1984) (prior authority informing penal-test factors)
- Carlson v. McCoy, 566 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1977) (prior authority informing penal-test factors)
- Goodman v. Heritage Builders, Inc., 390 P.3d 398 (Colo. 2017) (statutory-interpretation principles; de novo review)
- Pineda-Liberato v. People, 403 P.3d 160 (Colo. 2017) (use statutory context to give consistent meaning to terms)
- Sigala v. Atencio's Market, 184 P.3d 40 (Colo. 2008) (ascribe same meaning to words used throughout statutory scheme)