Colorado Insurance Transparency
C.R.S. § 10-3-1117: Colorado Auto Policy Disclosure
Colorado law gives injured claimants a practical path to request automobile insurance policy information before they are forced into unnecessary litigation.
Awake Foundation studies and explains the public-policy importance of insurance transparency after serious auto collisions. In Colorado, C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 provides a statutory disclosure process for claimants and attorneys seeking relevant automobile liability coverage information.
The purpose is simple: a crash victim should not have to guess whether coverage exists, rely on partial oral statements, or file suit merely to discover the available insurance that may determine whether medical bills, liens, UM/UIM claims, settlement, or litigation can be evaluated responsibly.
Transparency allows informed decisions. Nondisclosure creates leverage, delay, confusion, and unnecessary litigation.
The statute
What C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 Requires
30-Day Response
After receiving a proper written request, the insurer must provide the required policy information within thirty calendar days.
Relevant Policies
The disclosure obligation reaches each known policy of the named insured, including excess or umbrella insurance, that is or may be relevant to the claim.
Policy and Limits
The response must identify the insurer, the insured parties shown on the declarations page, the liability limits, and a copy of the policy.
Daily Damages
A noncomplying insurer may be liable to the requesting claimant for $100 per day beginning on the thirty-first day after receipt of the written request.
Why it matters
Insurance Disclosure Is the Starting Point for Informed Consent
After a serious crash, the visible bodily-injury policy may not be the full picture. There may be commercial auto coverage, employer-related coverage, household coverage, umbrella or excess coverage, rideshare or delivery-app coverage, MedPay, UM/UIM coverage, or coverage disputes that affect the path forward.
Without clear disclosure, injured people may sign releases, abandon claims, delay treatment, mishandle liens, or fail to preserve UM/UIM rights before they understand the true coverage structure.
The disclosure process helps turn uncertainty into a documented record.
Practical framework
What a Careful Disclosure Request Should Preserve
VictimsGuide.com emphasizes that the disclosure process should be handled as a documented workflow, not as a casual phone call or informal assumption about “minimum limits.”
A careful file should preserve:
- The written request sent to the insurer or insurers.
- Evidence that the request was sent to the insurer’s registered agent when required.
- Proof of delivery by mail, facsimile, or electronic transmission.
- The date the thirty-calendar-day response period begins.
- The response received from the insurer.
- The policies, declarations, endorsements, and limits actually disclosed.
- Any missing, ambiguous, incomplete, or delayed disclosure.
- Follow-up correspondence documenting unresolved coverage questions.
This kind of record may help a claimant, attorney, or later reviewing court understand what was requested, what was produced, and what coverage questions remain open.
Claimant protection
Information That Can Change the Claim
Umbrella or Excess Coverage
A serious injury claim may depend on whether an excess or umbrella policy exists. Silence about additional coverage should not be treated as proof that no additional coverage exists.
Commercial or Employer Coverage
Work-related driving, delivery activity, company vehicles, or employer-related facts may change the coverage investigation.
UM/UIM Timing
A victim’s own uninsured or underinsured motorist claim may depend on understanding the at-fault driver’s available liability coverage.
Medical Bills and Liens
Hospital bills, trauma charges, MedPay, health insurance, liens, and collections should be mapped before a release is signed.
Important confidentiality issue
Disclosure Information Is Not General Public Information
C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 includes restrictions on disclosure of the information provided under the statute. Claimants and their attorneys should treat policy information carefully and should not assume that statutory disclosures may be published, circulated, or used outside the claim context.
People handling a live claim should consult a qualified Colorado attorney about confidentiality, use of policy information, settlement, UM/UIM notice, liens, Medicare or Medicaid issues, and litigation deadlines.
Recent appellate guidance
Colorado Courts Are Beginning to Interpret the Statute
Colorado appellate decisions have begun clarifying the reach and enforcement of C.R.S. § 10-3-1117. Recent decisions address the meaning of policies that “provide or may provide” coverage, policies that “are or may be relevant,” daily damages for nondisclosure, and the statute of limitations for disclosure claims.
Public-education takeaways:
- The words “may provide” and “may be relevant” matter.
- The statute is designed to promote transparency and reduce unnecessary litigation.
- A narrow insurer response may not answer every relevant coverage question.
- Timelines, delivery proof, and completeness of production should be documented.
- Appellate law is developing, so live claims should be reviewed by qualified counsel.
VictimsGuide relationship
VictimsGuide.com Disclosure Support
Awake Foundation provides public education and policy analysis. VictimsGuide.com provides the public-facing crash-victim resources and limited administrative support services for Colorado auto policy disclosure requests.
VictimsGuide’s disclosure service is designed to help claimants prepare, transmit, track, and document Colorado auto policy disclosure requests. It may include intake review, request preparation, registered-agent mailing support, deadline monitoring, response review, and a disclosure completeness report.
Current service options include:
- Colorado Disclosure Packet Review — $149.
- Colorado Managed Disclosure Compliance Service — $395 launch price.
- Colorado Enhanced Disclosure Compliance Service — $695.
- Volume pricing for repeat attorney, clinic, provider, or consumer-organization workflows.
These services are administrative and compliance-focused. They are not legal representation, do not create an attorney-client relationship, do not value claims, do not negotiate settlements, and do not file lawsuits.
Reform and accountability
Why Awake Foundation Tracks Disclosure Problems
Disclosure problems are not merely private inconveniences. They affect settlement behavior, court filings, medical-billing pressure, claimant leverage, attorney evaluation, and public confidence in the insurance system.
Awake Foundation is interested in recurring patterns that may show where Colorado’s disclosure law needs better public education, stronger compliance practices, or future legislative refinement.
Patterns we are interested in understanding:
- Failure to disclose umbrella or excess coverage.
- Delayed responses beyond the thirty-calendar-day period.
- Responses that identify limits but omit the policy.
- Responses that omit endorsements or declarations pages.
- Ambiguous statements that discourage further coverage investigation.
- Claims where litigation was required to discover coverage.
- Work-related driving, commercial-use, rideshare, or delivery-app coverage disputes.
- Medical-billing or lien practices that pressure claimants before coverage is understood.
Contact
Contact Awake Foundation
To share a disclosure problem, reform idea, public-interest inquiry, or collaboration proposal, please contact Awake Foundation.
For help with a specific Colorado auto policy disclosure request, visit the VictimsGuide.com disclosure-services page.
Awake Foundation, LLC
Public education for insurance transparency, crash accountability, and civil reform.
