Colorado Justices To Weigh Insurer 'penalty,' Parole Officer Body Cams

The Colorado Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will decide how much time plaintiffs have to sue auto insurers for failing to disclose relevant policy information upon request.

The justices also recently intervened in an ongoing criminal case to address whether state parole officers are covered by the legal mandate for peace officers to wear and activate body-worn cameras.

At least three of the court's seven members must agree to hear a case on appeal, but at least four votes are required to review a case outside of the normal appellate process.

Penalty or no penalty?

In 2019, Colorado lawmakers enacted a measure to help motorists determine which insurance coverage is available in the event of an injury. To provide "accurate and reliable information," the law requires auto insurance companies to disclose policies within 30 days of a claimant's request, as long as the policy is or may be relevant to the claim. Companies that withhold information beyond the deadline face a $100-per-day penalty.

A driver collided with Joshua and Wendy Weatherill in December 2020. The next month, the Weatherills' attorney sought the driver's insurance policy and other details through State Farm, pursuant to the disclosure law. Eight days later, State Farm disclosed the driver's policy. A follow-up inquiry received no response from State Farm.

The following year, the plaintiffs sued the at-fault driver. Only then, in October 2022, did they learn that the driver had a second policy with much higher limits than the policy State Farm had disclosed. The Weatherills sued State Farm, noting they originally requested disclosure of known policies, "including excess or umbrella insurance," and they had no reason to believe State Farm was withholding information until the belated discovery.

State Farm moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the Weatherills sued outside of the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties. Denver District Court Judge Jill D. Dorancy agreed with the company, while acknowledging the Weatherills were unaware of a second policy.

As the Weatherills appealed, the Court of Appeals issued a decision in Reynolds v. Great Northern Insurance Company, confirming that plaintiffs have one year to sue because of the statute of limitations for penalties.

However, the three-judge appellate panel hearing the Weatherills' case parted ways with Reynolds. The one-year window did not apply, wrote Judge Elizabeth L. Harris, because the consequence for nondisclosure did not bear the hallmarks of a "penalty."

The "damages are not a fine imposed by the state, suggesting that the provision does not amount to a penalty," she wrote. More importantly, there is no "determination of overpayment or delinquency for which such penalties are assessed."

Consequently, the default two-year statute of limitations applied to the Weatherills, and they brought their case within that window.

State Farm turned to the Supreme Court to argue that the split in the Court of Appeals needed a resolution.

"These Courts of Appeals opinions are in hopeless conflict regarding the type of liability imposed onto insurers, what statute of limitations should apply, when that claim would accrue," wrote the company's attorneys.

The Weatherills responded that, if the Supreme Court accepted the case, it should rule that their appellate panel was correct and the Reynolds panel was wrong.

The Supreme Court will address the issue.

The case is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Weatherill et al.

Body cams

In April 2025, eight community parole officers arrived at Rodney Mobley's Colorado Springs home for an inspection. They received information that Mobley, who was on parole, allegedly had a firearm in violation of his parole conditions.

After Mobley did not answer their knocks, the parole officers broke open the door and encountered Mobley, who had been in the shower. They handcuffed Mobley and one parole officer took him outside to read him his Miranda rights. Mobley acknowledged there was a pill bottle with fentanyl inside his truck.

Officers inside Mobley's home found a loaded gun and additional narcotics. El Paso County prosecutors charged him with illegal drug and weapons possession.

The defense moved to block the evidence from being used against Mobley. Among other things, his lawyer argued that parole officers must notify the local law enforcement agency of their operations. Colorado law also requires peace officers to wear and activate body-worn cameras.

After hearing testimony and arguments, District Court Judge Hilary Gurney agreed that the parole officers unlawfully obtained evidence from Mobley's home.

She acknowledged that parole officers do not have an obligation to wear body cams "generally speaking." Earlier this year, the Court of Appeals issued a non-precedent-setting decision that concluded parole officers, as employees of the Colorado Department of Corrections, were exempt from the requirement. The law covers "peace officers," meaning Colorado State Patrol employees and those "employed by a political subdivision of the state."

"The CDOC employs community parole officers, and is not a political subdivision of the state because it does not discharge a function of local government," wrote Judge Terry Fox in the April appellate opinion.

But Gurney looked to other provisions of Colorado law that do include parole officers in the definition of "peace officer." One provision also requires the use of body cams when a peace officer "makes a warrantless entry into a dwelling in which occupants are unaware law enforcement is present and making entry."

"Warrantless entry into a dwelling when occupants are unaware that law enforcement is present and making entry creates a stressful and chaotic situation for all involved," she wrote in a Sept. 15 order. "For these reasons, the General Assembly clearly intended to expand the body-worn camera usage … to include all peace officers and require the use of body-worn cameras in these situations."

Based on the lack of video footage, Gurney applied the law's consequence of presuming officers committed misconduct. Because she received insufficient evidence to counter that presumption, Gurney barred the evidence from the home visit.

She also determined that the parole officers failed to comply with the law requiring notification of the local law enforcement agency.

The prosecution immediately appealed to the Supreme Court.

"Community parole officers are not employees of a 'political subdivision,'" wrote the district attorney's office. "The very first provision in the statute is clear that 'local law enforcement agencies' are required to provide body-worn cameras for peace officers of that agency interacting with the public; it does not require every entity employing peace officers to provide body-worn cameras."

The prosecution also pointed out that Mobley's parole officer briefly testified that she contacted "dispatch" before going to Mobley's home, which arguably complied with the notification requirement.

The Supreme Court directed Mobley to explain why it should not reverse Gurney's order.

The case is People v. Mobley.

Distributed by Newsbank, inc.

The post Colorado justices to weigh insurer 'penalty,' parole officer body cams appeared first on Insurance News | InsuranceNewsNet.