Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

865 P.2d 856

17 BriefTimesRptr. 519

Coffman v. Coffman

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided March 25, 1993

Colorado Court of Appeals · decided 1993-03-25

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1994

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“State Farm issued a policy to Coffman that excluded any bodily injury liability coverage for household members. After the decision of our supreme court in Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo.1984), State Farm issued an endorsement to the policy which provided liability coverage for household members to $25,000 per person. The policy was renewed with this endorsement on more than one occasion. Section 10-44720(1) C.R.S. (1987 Repl. Vol. 4A) requires approval by the State Insurance Commissioner for a reduction in coverage. In my view, the endorsement changing the policy from no coverage to $25,000, even if necessitated by the Meyer decision, is not a “reduction” in coverage under § 10-4-720(1) which requires the commissioner’s approval. For this reason, I would affirm the decision of the trial court finding the endorsement valid.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Coffman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Relies on Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-03-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Judge BRIGGS,

¶1specially concurring.

¶2I concur in the judgment, but under an analysis somewhat different than that stated in the majority opinion.

¶3State Farm issued a policy to Coffman that excluded any bodily injury liability coverage for household members. After the decision of our supreme court in Meyer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 689 P.2d 585 (Colo.1984) State Farm issued an endorsement to the policy which provided liability coverage for household members to $25,-000 per person. The policy was renewed with this endorsement on more than one occasion.

¶4Section 10-4-720(1) C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Yol. 4A) requires approval by the State Insurance Commissioner for a reduction in coverage. In my view, the endorsement changing the policy from no coverage to $25,000, even if necessitated by the Meyerdecision, is not a “reduction” in coverage under § 10-4-720(1) which requires the commissioner’s approval. *859For this reason, I would affirm the decision of the trial court finding the endorsement valid.

/865/p2d/856 · .json · Public domain