Colorado

Personal injury claims must be filed within two years of accrual under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a). This two-year period applies broadly to negligence-based tort claims and intentional tort claims resulting in personal injury. Wrongful death claims must be filed within two years of date of death under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(d), operating in conjunction with the Colorado Wrongful Death Act.

Motor vehicle tort claims are an important exception to the general two-year period: three years from accrual under C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n). The three-year motor vehicle period is longer than the general two-year tort SOL and operates as a procedural trap when practitioners assume the two-year period applies to all torts. Motor vehicle is the only major tort category with the extended three-year period.

Medical malpractice operates under a distinctive framework at C.R.S. § 13-80-102.5: two years from when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury, with a three-year outer repose from the date of the negligent act or omission. The two-year-discovery-plus-three-year-repose structure is shorter than the medical malpractice frameworks in California (one/three), Georgia (two/five), and Illinois (two/four).

General contract claims must be filed within three years of breach under C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(a). This three-year period applies to written and oral contract claims, breach of trust claims, and most other contract-based theories. Colorado's three-year contract period is shorter than New York's six-year period, Illinois's ten-year written contract period, and California's four-year written contract period.

Instruments for the payment of a sum certain (promissory notes, bonds, and similar negotiable instruments) follow a longer six-year period under C.R.S. § 13-80-103.5(1)(a). The distinction between general contract claims (three years) and instruments for a sum certain (six years) requires careful classification of the underlying obligation. UCC sale-of-goods claims follow a four-year period from breach under C.R.S. § 4-2-725.

Fraud claims must be filed within three years of accrual under C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(c), with the discovery rule under C.R.S. § 13-80-108(3) providing that accrual is delayed until the fraud is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The discovery rule is particularly important in latent fraud cases where the fraudulent conduct was concealed.

Defamation (libel and slander) must be filed within one year under C.R.S. § 13-80-103(1)(a). This shortened period requires accelerated intake for defamation matters, parallel to similar one-year periods in New York, California, DC, Georgia, and Illinois.

Colorado Governmental Immunity Act notice requirements under C.R.S. § 24-10-109 (covered separately) impose additional procedural deadlines that operate alongside these SOL periods when governmental defendants are involved. The 182-day CGIA notice period is one of the shorter governmental notice periods among the firm's service area states. Missing the CGIA notice deadline can bar the claim independently of the SOL period.

Colorado applies a modified comparative fault framework under C.R.S. § 13-21-111. A plaintiff whose fault equals or exceeds 50 percent of the total fault is barred from recovery. A plaintiff whose fault is less than 50 percent recovers damages reduced by their proportionate share of fault. The 50-percent bar framework parallels Colorado's regional neighbors Kansas and Utah, as well as Tennessee.

The framework distinguishes Colorado from the 51-percent bar jurisdictions (Texas, Nevada, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Massachusetts, Illinois) where plaintiffs can still recover at 50 percent fault. Under Colorado's 50-percent bar, a plaintiff found exactly 50 percent at fault recovers nothing. The one-percent difference between 50- and 51-percent bar frameworks affects close cases meaningfully and can determine outcomes in evenly-allocated fault scenarios.

Colorado's pro rata several liability framework under C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5 imposes several-only liability on most tort defendants. Each defendant is liable only for the percentage of damages attributable to that defendant's fault. There is no joint liability for damages allocated to other tortfeasors in most tort categories. The pro rata framework was adopted as part of Colorado's tort reform legislation and operates as the default rule for fault allocation.

The pro rata framework includes apportionment among parties and certain non-parties under § 13-21-111.5(3), permitting designation of nonparties at fault. Designations must follow procedural requirements including notice within statutory periods (generally 90 days after commencement of the action, with some flexibility for later-discovered nonparties). Non-party apportionment is more limited than Georgia's framework under OCGA § 51-12-33 but provides similar functionality for allocating fault to absent tortfeasors.

Limited exceptions to pro rata several liability exist where joint and several liability is preserved. These include concert-of-action conspiracies, certain pollution and environmental cases, and specific statutory frameworks. The general rule of several-only liability dominates Colorado tort practice, but practitioners must verify whether their specific claim falls into an exception category. Hybrid joint-and-several treatment for specific damage categories is more limited in Colorado than in New York (Article 16) or Illinois (§ 2-1117).

The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act under C.R.S. § 24-10-109 requires written notice within 182 days of the discovery of the injury for any claim against a public entity or public employee. The 182-day period is one of the shorter governmental notice periods among the firm's service area states, shorter than California's six-month Government Claims Act notice (approximately 183 days), Georgia's six-month municipal Ante Litem Notice, and DC's six-month notice under D.C. Code § 12-309.

The notice must be in writing and contain specific information about the claim. Without timely written notice, no claim can be brought against the public entity or public employee regardless of the underlying merits of the case. The CGIA notice requirement applies to claims against the State of Colorado, state agencies, municipalities, counties, school districts, special districts, and other public entities defined under the Act.

The § 24-10-109 notice must contain the claimant's name and address, a concise statement of the factual basis of the claim, the name and address of the public employee involved (if known), a concise statement of the nature and extent of the injury, and a statement of the amount of monetary damages requested. The notice must be filed with the appropriate public entity (the governing body of a municipality, the Colorado Attorney General for state claims, the executive director of a state agency, or the appropriate officer of other public entities).

Colorado courts apply strict construction to § 24-10-109 content requirements. Substantial compliance is generally insufficient if material information is missing or vague. Failure to provide timely written notice with adequate content bars the claim regardless of the underlying merits, parallel to the strict construction approaches in DC (§ 12-309), Georgia (Ante Litem), and California (Government Claims Act).

The discovery rule applies to the 182-day period: the deadline begins when the claimant discovered or should have discovered the injury and its connection to the public entity through reasonable diligence. For minor claimants and certain other categories, equitable tolling principles may apply. Limited exceptions to the strict notice requirement exist, including for fraud or where the public entity has actual knowledge of the incident through specific channels.

The CGIA notice requirement operates as a condition precedent to suit. Missing the 182-day deadline bars the claim independently of the SOL period under C.R.S. § 13-80-102. Strict compliance is required and courts apply the requirement rigorously, with limited equitable exceptions through the discovery rule and statutory carve-outs.

Colorado's Medicaid False Claims Act under C.R.S. § 25.5-4-303.5 provides a Medicaid-specific qui tam framework. The statute is limited to fraud against Colorado's Medicaid program and does not extend to fraud against other state-administered programs. Colorado does not have a broader general state FCA covering state programs outside Medicaid, placing it among the Medicaid-only state FCA jurisdictions alongside Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Utah, and Washington.

The Medicaid FCA was enacted to qualify under the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), which provides enhanced state share of Medicaid fraud recoveries when state FCAs meet specific federal requirements including provisions for qui tam relators, materiality and scienter standards parallel to federal FCA, and treble damages with civil penalties. The statute closely tracks the federal False Claims Act in structure for Medicaid claims.

Colorado Medicaid FCA cases are filed under seal in Colorado state court and served on the Colorado Attorney General and the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing (the state Medicaid agency). The intervention decision is coordinated through the Attorney General's office, with seal extensions common as the AG evaluates the matter.

Relator's share of recoveries parallels the federal framework: 15 to 25 percent if the AG intervenes, or 25 to 30 percent if the AG declines and the relator proceeds alone. Parallel federal-state coordination is common when alleged Medicaid fraud implicates both state and federal Medicaid funding, with relators frequently filing parallel federal qui tam complaints under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 alongside the state Medicaid FCA action.

For practitioners working on non-Medicaid program fraud against Colorado state government, the absence of a broader state FCA framework limits qui tam recovery options to the federal FCA framework (for federal program fraud) or common-law fraud claims by the state (which require AG initiation and do not provide relator's share). This Medicaid-only structure is one of the operational limitations of Colorado's qui tam practice compared to dual-FCA states (Georgia, Tennessee, New Mexico) or broad-FCA states (New York, California, Illinois, Massachusetts).