
	News
	Articles

News

08/01/08: New Law Penalizes Insurance Carriers for Unreasonable Conduct

The Colorado legislature recently passed and Governor Ritter signed HB-1407, effective August 6, 2008.

The Bill gives the insured the right to file an action against his or her insurance carrier when the insurance carrier has unreasonably denied or delayed benefits. The law permits an insured to recover two times the amount of benefits not paid or paid late and entitles the insured to recover attorney's fees and costs in prosecuting the claim.

The Bill does not apply to workers' compensation benefits or title insurance benefits, but does apply to life insurance, health insurance, disability insurance, automobile medial payments insurance and automobile uninsured motorist insurance.

If anyone is getting the "run around" from their insurance carrier, you might consider giving Rick Lesch or Bruce Smith a call. Read More...

07/21/08: Important Change In Auto Insurance

Underinsured Motorist (UIM) coverage provides benefits to an insured who is injured as the result of the negligence of another party where that party has low Liability Insurance (LI) limits. At the present time, if an insured has UIM coverage of $100,000 and it is injured by the negligence of another party who has only $25,000 in LI coverage, then the insured could have access to the other party’s $25,000 in LI coverage and the difference between the negligent parties LI coverage and the insured’s UIM coverage, which in this case would be an additional $75,000.

For policies renewed or written after January 1, 2008, that will all change. The new law allows an insured to “stack” his UIM coverage on top of the negligent party’s LI coverage. In the example above, the insured would have access to both the $25,000 LI coverage and his UIM coverage of $100,000 for a total of $125,000 in coverage. This change represents a new benefit at minimal additional cost to the insured. Remember, however, that it only applies to renewal policies written after January 1, 2008. If you want to take advantage of this change in the law, you should call your insurance agent prior to January 1, 2008 and they will terminate your old policy and issue you a new policy effective January 1, 2008. Most of the automobile insurance company providers are set up to accomplish this as painlessly as possible.

If you have any questions about the new law, please give Rick Lesch or Bruce Smith in our office a call.

Read More...

07/21/08: Land Grab Should Be Condemned

denver and the west
Land grab should be condemned
By David Harsanyi
The Denver Post
Article Last Updated: 11/21/2007 01:30:13 AM MST

Gary Smith and his wife, Linda, moved to the Parker area 40 years ago. As he tells it, all "you saw were cows and horses."

We all realize that suburban Denver's landscape has dramatically changed. Nowadays, biting down on a bloated bacon cheeseburger at Applebee's is about as close as locals are going to get to a cow.

Smith was clever enough — or perhaps lucky enough — to invest in some land in the area a decade ago. Now, obviously, he's in line to make a killing.

For Smith, the problem is the affectionate gaze of local government. Smith's land — where a family nursery and landscaping business stands — also happens to be an ideal spot for an expansion of local parks and open space.

According to Smith, town leaders in Parker believe his insistence on a fair market-value price is "selfish" and his negotiating strategy nothing more than "gouging."

As many local municipalities are prone to do nowadays, Parker is determined to seize the property. For the common good, of course.

The town could buy it after negotiating a price, sure. Or it could just use eminent domain and condemn the property.

Which option do you think Parker chose?

"I'm in favor of using this land for parks," explains Smith, who concedes he's ready to sell the land. "I'd rather have open space than housing or development in this spot. There are wetlands here. A bird sanctuary. A creek that runs through it. So it is a great location. But there is a fair price for the land."

Here's another important factoid: Smith's land is not even in Parker. It's in Douglas County.

To overcome such piddling concerns, municipalities form intergovernment relationships, as is the case here.

But in 2004, in response to the trend of abusive eminent- domain cases like this one, the Colorado legislature passed a law prohibiting municipalities like Parker from condemning property outside its boundaries "in absence of consent of the landowner and the local government in whose territory the property is located."

That statute is now being reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court after a case involving Telluride and a condemnation process levied against land outside its boundaries. The owner of the property in question had no interest in selling.

Parker did not wait for the outcome of the case.

Jim Maloney, the Parker town attorney, says Smith's land is within the town's growth boundary.

"It's the last piece of land that's not ours in the whole Cherry Creek corridor," he explains.

"So what?" one might retort. Is it Smith's problem that he lucked out with some primo property?

Two Town Council members, Debbie Lewis and Tina Long, moved this week to put an end to the action against Smith. Common sense did not prevail, as the motion did not gain consensus and was shot down.

Council members refuse to speak to me about the case.

Maloney, however, has decided — according to a spokesperson — to send a letter to the Smiths' lawyer requesting a stay until the Supreme Court renders a decision in the Telluride matter.

"If you really don't mean to proceed with the case just yet, don't file it," responds Smith family attorney Bruce Smith (no relation), who has not yet seen the letter. "If you don't need immediate possession and use of the land, and they say they don't, why are you asking this court for a stay? Why not wait until the Supreme Court case and then file?"

Good question.

But even if the court rules in favor of Telluride, this sort of condemnation is abusive. Whenever municipalities seek more open space, more parks or more tax revenue from a new Wal-Mart or Target, they seem to turn to eminent domain.

Parker is no exception.

Read More...

rss | atom
News powered by: Nucleus CMS

The material located on our web site is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be legal advice. We are available for consultation regarding legal matters; however, the act of sending electronic mail to our firm or a specific attorney does not alone create an attorney-client relationship, and we reserve the right not to respond. Jeffrey R. Bergstrom is a Darling, Bergstrom & Milligan, PC attorney and responsible for the content of this web site.