Pacheco v. Shelter Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that UM/UIM provision that diluted, limited, or conditioned Colorado’s statutorily mandated coverage was void and invalid as against public policy
• concluding, after applying Colorado law, that “written rejection of coverage is only required if the insured declines UM/UIM coverage entirely, which is not the case here”
• finding that a UM/UIM provision that diluted, limited, or conditioned Colorado’s statutorily mandated coverage was void and invalid as against public policy
• relying on a provision of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (No-Fault Act), §§ 10- 4-701 to -726 (repealed effective July 1, 2003
• remanding for unexamined issue to be considered by the district court in the first instance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).