A methodical approach is essential when evaluating potentially uncovered claims:

Begin with a thorough analysis of policy language compared against specific claim facts, documenting each step of the evaluation process. If claim denial becomes necessary, cite specific policy provisions and exclusions supporting the position.

Colorado courts scrutinize denial letters with particular care, making precision in communication critical. Proper documentation of the decision-making process provides the strongest protection against bad faith allegations. Every coverage position must withstand both internal review and potential judicial scrutiny.

Jennifer Arnett’s experience as Chief Litigation Officer for a national P&C carrier can help strengthen your coverage analysis process. Let's schedule a consultation to review your current protocols.

Colorado presents unique challenges due to its policyholder-friendly statutory framework and evolving case law. The statutory availability of double damages plus attorney fees under C.R.S. § 10-3-1116 creates substantial exposure beyond policy limits.

The most effective defense is proactive claim handling that anticipates these heightened standards rather than merely reacting after allegations arise.

At Structura Law, we defend carriers against Colorado bad faith claims - and help avoid bad faith allegations. Contact us to discuss how we can help protect your company from these expanding exposures.

The strongest protection against bad faith claims comes from two critical areas:

First, implement claim-handling protocols specific to Colorado's requirements—practices sufficient elsewhere often fall short here. Second, maintain consistent, documented communication with policyholders that clearly explains reasoning. 

Carriers can significantly reduce bad faith exposure by communicating with insureds and by ensuring compliance with Colorado’s laws.

Our firm can help audit your current claim handling protocols to identify potential vulnerabilities. Call (720) 726-5852 to arrange a confidential assessment.

Colorado's construction defect landscape presents particularly complex challenges. The courts have established distinctive interpretations of standard policy provisions, especially regarding the "occurrence" requirement and business risk exclusions.

Precedent-setting cases like Houston Cas. Co. v. Swinerton Builders have clarified when a CDARA notice triggers defense obligations. The proper determination of what constitutes “property damage” under a CGL policy remains a frequent battleground, requiring sophisticated analysis of both policy language and specific construction circumstances.

Progressive damage across multiple policy periods further complicates these matters, making allocation determinations particularly challenging. Coverage positions must withstand scrutiny at each step in this complex analysis.

Having successfully litigated numerous construction defect coverage cases in Colorado, our team can provide strategic guidance for your specific circumstances. Schedule a consultation today.

Declaratory judgment actions are most appropriate when three factors align: First, when the coverage question involves matters of contract interpretation rather than disputed facts; second, when the coverage position is strong but complex enough to benefit from judicial clarity; and third, when the underlying exposure justifies the investment. Declaratory actions are most effective when implemented as part of a coherent coverage strategy rather than merely as reactive measures.

Let's evaluate your current coverage dispute and determine whether a declaratory action would strengthen your position. Contact Structura Law for a strategic analysis.

Claims-made policies present specific challenges that require specialized handling. Establishing clear internal protocols for date-stamping and immediately analyzing whether communications constitute a "claim" under specific policy definitions is essential.

Carriers should document analysis of whether claims were first made during policy periods, with particular attention to prior knowledge provisions and their interaction with renewal applications. If applications asked about potential claims, carefully review insureds' responses against what they now claim they knew.

When denying based on timing issues, the strongest position connects the dots between policy language, timing facts, and any representation issues that may void coverage.

Our experience handling claims-made coverage disputes can help you develop more robust notification protocols. Call (720) 726-5852 to discuss your specific policy concerns.

The complex insurer-insured-defense counsel relationship requires strategic management. Initial reservations of rights should clearly establish the parameters of the defense being provided. Guidelines for defense counsel must balance necessary oversight with appropriate professional independence.

The most frequent pitfall occurs in communication about settlement opportunities and authority. Establish clear protocols for timely evaluation and communication of settlement positions. When coverage issues exist alongside defense obligations, separate coverage counsel early in the process creates cleaner communication lines and reduces conflicts.

At Structura Law, we provide targeted counsel on managing these complex relationships while minimizing exposure. Schedule a consultation to discuss how we can help strengthen your current approach.