Weatherill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
2026 COA 11. No. 23CA1172. Insurance Company Regulation—Required Disclosures—Limitation of Actions—General Limitation of Actions Two Years—CRS § 10-3-1117.
March 12, 2026
The Weatherills were involved in a car accident with Ortega, who was insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (State Farm). On January 21, 2021, the Weatherills’ counsel requested information from State Farm on Ortega’s policy coverage under CRS § 10-3-1117(2)(a). State Farm responded with information that Ortega had liability coverage of $250,000. On February 16, 2021, the Weatherills’ counsel sent State Farm a substantially identical § 10-3-1117(2)(a) request, but State Farm did not respond. The Weatherills sued Ortega, and during that litigation Ortega produced a State Farm confirmation of coverage document showing she had an additional $1 million umbrella policy when the car accident occurred. In November 2022, the Weatherills filed this action against State Farm, asserting that State Farm violated § 10-3-1117 by not disclosing Ortega’s umbrella policy. They sought damages of $100 per day for each day that State Farm had not complied with its obligation, plus attorney fees and costs. State Farm moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that § 10-3-1117 is a penalty statute, so the Weatherills’ claim was barred because it was subject to a one-year statute of limitations that began accruing on March 19, 2021—31 days after the Weatherills’ February 16 request to State Farm. The district court dismissed the complaint.
On appeal, the Weatherills challenged the dismissal of their claim as untimely. Under § 10-3-1117(2)(a), a person having a potential automobile liability claim against an insured may request relevant policy coverage information from the insured’s insurance company. The insurer must respond within 30 days by giving the claimant all known insurance policies of the insured, including any umbrella policies. Under § 10-3-1117(3), an insurer that violates this requirement is liable to the claimant for damages of $100 for every day of noncompliance. The court of appeals construed the plain language of § 10-3-1117 and the relevant statutory scheme and concluded that § 10-3-1117 is not an action for a penalty or forfeiture for purposes of determining the statute of limitations. Section 10-3-1117 is thus not subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Rather, a claim against an insurer for violating § 10-3-1117(3) is subject to the two-year catchall statute of limitations at § 13-80-102(1)(i), and it accrues when the conduct supporting the cause of action is discovered or should have been discovered. Accordingly, the district court erred by granting State Farm’s motion to dismiss.
The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded with directions to reinstate the complaint.