Bohanan v. Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Co.
No. 24CA1649. 2026 COA 6. Insurance Regulation—Insurance Claim—Request for Copy of Insurance Policy—Unfair Competition and Deceptive Practices—Required Disclosures—Statutory Damages.
February 5, 2026
Arteaga drove through a red light and caused an automobile accident with Bohanan. On the same day, a third party obtained an auto insurance policy from Esurance Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Esurance) that named Arteaga as an additional insured (the policy). Bohanan hired a lawyer to bring a personal injury claim against Arteaga, and the lawyer requested copies from the Colorado Division of Insurance (division), as the registered agent for Esurance, of any insurance policies issued by Esurance in connection with Bohanan’s claim against Arteaga. Esurance promptly determined that it issued a policy on the date of the car accident and that the policy may provide coverage for Bohanan’s potential claim. But it then took Esurance 36 days to investigate and determine that the policy was purchased 90 minutes after the collision. Esurance refused to produce the policy on grounds that it was not in effect when the collision occurred, and later sent a letter to Bohanan’s counsel denying coverage for the loss. The following year, Bohanan sent two letters to Esurance stating that it had failed to respond to her request for policy information as required by CRS § 10-3-1117(2)(a). Esurance responded to the letters and provided a copy of the policy. In its response letter, Esurance stated that Bohanan’s counsel had not sent the demand letter to its registered agent, so it was not paying the $100 per diem statutory penalty for the delayed production. Bohanan then sued Esurance under § 10-3-1117(3), seeking statutory damages of $100 for each day following the 30th day after Bohanan’s request through the date Esurance ultimately delivered the policy to her. The district court concluded that Esurance violated § 10-3-1117(2)(a) by not providing a copy of the policy to Bohanan within 30 days but limited Bohanan’s damages award to $600, representing the six days that elapsed between the statutory deadline and the date Esurance disclosed to Bohanan that the policy was not in effect at the time of the accident.
On appeal, Bohanan argued that the district court improperly calculated the statutory penalty because § 10-3-1117(3) required the court to award her damages for the entire 356-day period that Esurance failed to produce the policy. Section 10-3-1117(3) provides that an insurer that fails to provide a copy of the policy within 30 days is liable for $100 per day, beginning on and including the 31st day following receipt of the claimant’s written request. Here, Bohanan filed her request for a copy of the policy on September 7, 2022, and 30 days elapsed on October 7, 2022. Esurance finally provided a copy of the policy to Bohanan on September 29, 2023. At $100 per day, the statutorily mandated damages award equals $35,600. Accordingly, the district court erred in its damages award.
On cross-appeal, Esurance contended that the district court improperly determined that Esurance violated § 10-3-1117(2)(a). Section 10-3-1117(2)(a) requires an insurer to provide a claimant a copy of any insurance policy that “is or may be relevant” to a claim. Esurance apparently conceded on appeal that the division was acting as its registered agent and that it received the request for the policy. Here, though Esurance ultimately denied coverage, both the amount of time it took to assess the coverage issue and the initial confusion on both sides about whether the loss would be covered indicate that, during the statutory response period, the policy may have been relevant to the claim. The court of appeals interpreted the phrase “is or may be relevant” in § 10-3-1117(2)(a) for the first time in a published Colorado appellate opinion. The court concluded that the statute unambiguously required Esurance to give Bohanan’s counsel a copy of the policy within 30 days of the date its registered agent received the request, notwithstanding the factual uncertainties regarding whether the policy was in effect at the time of the accident.
The district court’s finding that Esurance violated § 10-3-1117(2)(a) was affirmed. The damages award was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions for the district court to enter a judgment awarding Bohanan damages of $35,600.