Slack v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
2000 Colo. LEXIS 742, 5 P.3d 280, 2000 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3458 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Colorado's several liability statute requires the pro rata distribution of civil liability among all tortfeasors who jointly cause an indivisible injury, including apportionment between a negligent actor and an intentional actor. A defendant is only liable for the portion of damages represented by their determined percentage of fault.
Facts:
- On September 8, 1992, Juliette Diane Slack was injured in an automobile accident.
- Slack sought treatment from her chiropractor, who submitted charges to her insurer, Farmers Insurance Exchange.
- Farmers Insurance required Slack to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) and scheduled an appointment with Dr. Lloyd Lachow.
- At the time Farmers Insurance referred Slack to Dr. Lachow, another Farmers' insured had already filed a claim alleging that Dr. Lachow had sexually assaulted her during an IME.
- During her examination, Slack alleged that Dr. Lachow sexually assaulted her and caused her additional physical pain.
- Following an investigation by the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, Dr. Lachow's license was suspended, and he admitted that a prima facie case of unprofessional conduct could be established against him.
Procedural Posture:
- Juliette Slack and her husband sued Dr. Lachow and Farmers Insurance in a state trial court.
- The Slacks settled their claims with Dr. Lachow before trial.
- Farmers Insurance designated Dr. Lachow as a nonparty at fault.
- Following a trial, a jury found in favor of the Slacks on their negligence claim against Farmers Insurance.
- The jury apportioned 60% of the fault to Dr. Lachow and 40% to Farmers Insurance.
- The trial court reduced Juliette Slack's compensatory damage award by 60% in accordance with the jury's apportionment but did not reduce her husband's award.
- Slack appealed the reduction of her award to the Colorado Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- Farmers Insurance cross-appealed the trial court's refusal to apportion the husband's award.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the reduction of Slack's award and reversed the trial court's failure to reduce her husband's award, ruling in favor of Farmers Insurance on both issues.
- The Slacks then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Colorado's pro rata liability statute, section 13-21-111.5, require a court to apportion civil liability between a defendant who acted negligently and a nonparty who acted intentionally to cause an indivisible injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kourlis
Yes. Colorado's pro rata liability statute requires apportionment of liability among negligent and intentional tortfeasors who contribute to an indivisible injury. The plain meaning of the statute's text, which applies to any action for injury and apportions liability based on 'negligence or fault,' compels this conclusion. The legislature's use of the term 'fault' in addition to 'negligence' indicates an intent to cover a broader scope of conduct, including intentional acts. This interpretation aligns with the legislative goal of abolishing joint and several liability to ensure a tortfeasor is only responsible for the portion of damages that he or she caused, regardless of the nature of the co-tortfeasor's conduct. To hold otherwise would create an anomaly where a negligent tortfeasor's liability would depend entirely on whether their co-tortfeasor acted negligently or intentionally.
Dissenting - Justice Rice
No. The pro rata liability statute was not intended to allow for the apportionment of liability between a negligent tortfeasor and an intentional tortfeasor. The term 'fault' in the statute is ambiguous, and its legislative history indicates it was added to include actions like gross negligence and products liability, not intentional torts. Precluding apportionment is consistent with public policy, especially where the negligent tortfeasor's breach of duty was the failure to prevent the very intentional harm that occurred. Allowing a negligent party like Farmers Insurance to reduce its liability by pointing to the intentional act it should have prevented undermines the incentive to comply with its duty of care and does not impose an 'unfair' burden inconsistent with the statute's purpose.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Colorado's strict adherence to a 'several liability' system, extending it to complex cases involving both negligent and intentional tortfeasors. It establishes that the statutory goal of making defendants pay only for their own percentage of fault overrides policy arguments that negligent parties who create the risk of intentional harm should bear greater responsibility. The ruling shifts the risk of an insolvent or judgment-proof intentional tortfeasor from the negligent co-defendant to the injured plaintiff, who can only recover the negligent party's apportioned share. This precedent significantly impacts litigation strategy in cases with multiple defendants whose culpability differs in kind, not just degree.
