Court Rulings

The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether defendant is entitled to recover his attorney fees pursuant to a fee-shifting provision of a prior settlement agreement between him and plaintiffs. The fee-shifting clause at issue provided that the prevailing party in an action to enforce, by any means, any of the terms of the settlement agreement shall be awarded all costs of the action, including reasonable attorney fees. Here, plaintiffs' claims, in substance, sought relief based on allegations that defendant had breached the terms of the settlement agreement, and defendant responded by arguing that it was plaintiffs' claims that were inconsistent with that agreement. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that plaintiffs' claims constituted an effort to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. Indeed, consistent with this conclusion, plaintiffs themselves had asserted a claim for fees pursuant to the fee-shifting clause at issue. Accordingly, the Court held that defendant, as the prevailing party on all claims, is entitled to recover his attorney fees pursuant to the settlement agreement's fee-shifting clause. The Court therefore reversed the water court's order denying an award of such fees and remanded the case for a determination of the trial and appellate fees to be awarded to defendant.

CRCP 106(a)(4) —Rezoning Decision—Due Process—Spot Zoning. Plaintiffs Whitelaw, III and various neighbors (the neighbors) sought judicial review of the rezoning decision of defendant Denver City Council (the Council). Cedar Metropolitan LLC (Cedar) applied to rezone a 2.3-acre parcel. To build an "age-targeted" apartment complex on the site, Cedar sought to tear down a blighted church and rezone the parcel from single family home to a zone district that allowed three-story apartment buildings. The neighbors are property owners who live in the neighborhood near the parcel. They challenged the rezoning efforts, asserting it would hurt their property values, create traffic and parking problems, cause hazards to pedestrians, and degrade the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Following an eight-hour hearing, the Council granted the request to change the zoning. The neighbors challenged the rezoning in district court under CRCP 106(a)(4). The district court rejected all of their claims. On appeal, the neighbors asserted various claims, principally violation of their right to due process. They made five due process arguments. The Court of Appeals will affirm a rezoning decision unless the governmental entity exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, which occurs if the body misapplied the law or no competent evidence supports its decision. The neighbors first argued that a lobbyist for Cedar communicated before the hearing with Council member Susman, in whose district the parcel lies, through her private email account and by phone. They alleged that the failure to disclose these communications to the public before the hearing deprived them of their due process rights because they did not have notice and an opportunity to rebut the information on which the Council may have impermissibly relied in making its determination. Despite evidence of approximately 50 pages of such emails, the neighbors pointed to no evidence that they had a "substantial prejudicial

Andres Trucking Co. (Andres) operated a dump truck that caught fire while it was insured by United Fire and Casualty Co. (United). The parties agreed that the truck was a total loss but disagreed about its value. Ultimately, Andres filed an amended complaint alleging breach of contract and bad faith denial and delay of an insurance claim under CRS §§ 10-3-1115 and -1116 and challenging the enforceability of the contractual appraisal provision. The district court struck the amended complaint on the ground that the insurance policy required an appraisal. Following an appraisal, United paid Andres the truck's appraised value and moved for entry of judgment under CRCP 12(b)(5), contending that as a matter of law the appraisal process had resolved Andres's claims. While this motion was pending, Andres moved to amend its complaint. The district court again denied the motion, reasoning that the appraisal process concluded the issues before the court, and entered judgment for United. On appeal, Andres argued that the district court erred in dismissing its complaint because the appraisal process did not resolve whether United had breached the insurance policy or unreasonably denied or delayed payment of benefits. The Court concluded that the appraisal process did not determine United's liability for breach of contract or statutory bad faith delay. The district court erred in determining that the appraisal precluded Andres from pursuing these claims. Andres also raised various challenges to the appraisal process itself. The Court rejected the arguments that (1) the appraisal provisions are unconstitutional (2) United did not properly invoke the appraisal because it never demanded it and (3) the appraisal process did not result in a binding loss valuation. The appraisal award is a binding determination of the value of the insured property, and thus Andres may not further litigate that issue. The district court did not err in enforcing the appraisal provision. The Court also de

<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — Seagraves test — injured employee's</bold> <bold>right to continuing benefits — termination for misconduct</bold> <block_quote> Our Supreme Court adopts the <italic>Seagraves</italic>, <cross_reference>123 N.C. App. 228</cross_reference> (2003), test for determining an injured employee's right to continuing workers' compensation benefits after being terminated for misconduct whereby an employer must demonstrate initially that the employee was terminated for misconduct, the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee, and the termination was unrelated to the employee's compensable injury, in order to find that an employee constructively refused suitable work, thus barring workers' compensation benefits for lost earnings unless the employee is then able to show that his inability to find or hold other employment at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury is due to the work-related injury.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — constructive refusal of suitable</bold> <bold>employment — termination for misconduct unrelated to</bold> <bold>workplace injuries</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by concluding that defendant employer met its burden of providing competent evidence that plaintiff employee's failure to perform her UPC labeling duties was not related to her prior compensable injury under workers' compensation, which thereby led to her termination for misconduct and denial of additional workers' compensation benefits based on an alleged failure to accept a suitable position reasonably offered by her employer, because: (1) the evidence relied upon by the Commission's majority indicated that plaintiff was having continuing problems in the wake of, and as a result of, her injuries; (2) there was no competent evidence referenced in the Commission's opinion and award that supported a showing by defendant employer that