Coverage visibility changes every important settlement decision

Before a claimant can evaluate a liability settlement, preserve UM/UIM rights, assess litigation economics or sign a release, the claimant needs a reliable picture of the insurance that may answer for the loss. Colorado created a pre-suit disclosure system to reduce part of that information gap.

Question 1

What was requested?

Preserve the exact written request. The scope and wording matter, and the statutory procedure begins with a written request rather than an oral inquiry.

Question 2

Who received it?

A claimant's § 10-3-1117 request must be sent to the insurer's registered agent. Proof of delivery belongs in the claim file.

Question 3

What was produced?

Audit insurer name, insured names, liability limits, policy copies, excess or umbrella information and whether the response identifies all known relevant policies.

Question 4

What remains missing?

Do not let silence or partial production become the coverage map. Record missing policies, unanswered leads and unexplained gaps.

Question 5

What decision depends on it?

Link every missing item to a decision: settlement, release, UM/UIM, litigation, damages evaluation or a search for additional responsible parties.

Working rule

Make the process reviewable

Request, delivery, Day 30, response, production, missing items and follow-up should be visible from one chronology without reconstructing the file later.

Colorado's disclosure statute is powerful, but targeted. It helps expose commercial or personal automobile liability policies that are or may be relevant. It does not eliminate the need to investigate other parties, business relationships, non-auto insurance, contractual responsibility or the injured person's own first-party coverages.

What C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 actually requires

The statute creates two related disclosure rights: one for an insured seeking the insured's own automobile policy and another for a claimant seeking relevant liability-policy information concerning the opposing insured.

Colorado automobile policy disclosure duties under C.R.S. section 10-3-1117.
Who requests?	What is requested?	Deadline / delivery rule	Key point
Insured party	Complete commercial or personal automobile policy, including endorsements.	Insurer must provide it not more than 30 calendar days after receiving the written request.	Separate right under § 10-3-1117(1).
Claimant or claimant's attorney	Required information for each known policy of the named insured, including excess or umbrella insurance, that is or may be relevant.	Within 30 calendar days after the insurer receives the written request sent to the insurer's registered agent.	Core third-party disclosure right under § 10-3-1117(2)(a).
Claimant requests from insured party	Name and coverage of each known insurer of the insured party.	Statute requires disclosure upon written request.	Independent insured-party duty under § 10-3-1117(2)(b).

The claimant response must state four categories

I

Insurer name

The response identifies the insurer associated with the relevant policy.

II

Insured names

The name of each insured party as the name appears on the declarations page.

III

Liability limits

The limits of liability coverage for the known policy that is or may be relevant.

IV

Policy copy

A copy of the policy itself, not merely a limits letter or selected policy excerpts.

Scope

Excess & umbrella

The statutory language expressly includes excess or umbrella insurance among known potentially relevant policies.

Definition

Claimant

Section 10-3-1117(5) defines claimant as a person who has provided notice to an insurer of a potential claim.

Declarations page ≠ policy. Regulation 5-2-03 defines “policy” by reference to Colorado's automobile-policy statute and states that the policy does not include the declarations page or insurance application, even if attached. The statute separately requires the insured names and liability limits. A declarations page alone therefore should not be treated as the statutory “copy of the policy.”

Build the statutory request as a proof sequence

The safest workflow treats § 10-3-1117 as a document-production process with proof of every step. Do not rely on memory, telephone calls or an adjuster's informal assurance that “this is all the coverage.”

Step 1 Open the claim Give notice of the potential claim and preserve the insurer/claim information.

Step 2 Identify registered agent Confirm the insurer's registered agent using a reliable current source.

Step 3 Send written request Make the requested statutory disclosure precise and preserve a copy.

Step 4 Prove delivery Preserve transmission, receipt, forwarding or other delivery evidence.

Step 5 Calendar Day 30 Track the statutory response window and the 31st day separately.

Record insurer's exact legal name.
Record the registered agent used for the request.
Save the complete signed or final written request.
Save proof of mailing, delivery, fax or electronic transmission.
Record the date the insurer or registered agent received the request.
Calendar the 30-calendar-day response deadline.
Save every response, attachment and follow-up communication.
Do not alter or overwrite the original request-and-response file.

Regulation 5-2-03 operationalizes the statute. It requires insurers offering commercial or personal automobile policies in Colorado to establish a process for responding to policy-information requests within the statutory 30-calendar-day period and reinforces use of the registered agent.

Audit the response — do not merely receive it

A disclosure response becomes useful only after it is tested against the request, the statute, the known facts and the other coverage leads in the file.

Audit checklist for a Colorado C.R.S. 10-3-1117 response.
Audit item	Question	Record if missing
Insurer	Is the insurer's legal identity clear?	Entity ambiguity, affiliates, underwriting company or servicing carrier.
Insured parties	Are insured names identified as required?	Unknown owner, household member, business entity or additional insured lead.
Limits	Are liability limits stated for each potentially relevant policy?	Missing limits, unexplained aggregate, combined-single-limit ambiguity.
Policy	Was a complete policy produced rather than selected excerpts?	Missing forms, endorsements, schedules, definitions or referenced provisions.
Excess / umbrella	Does the response address known excess or umbrella insurance?	Umbrella lead, unexplained excess reference, other insurer name.
Other policies	Do the facts suggest another auto policy of the named insured may be relevant?	Other vehicles, household policies, business vehicles or coverage letters.
Coverage position	Is the insurer withholding a policy because it believes coverage ultimately fails?	Preserve denial rationale and compare with Bohanan/Fogel relevance analysis.

A denial is not necessarily a substitute for production. 2026 appellate authority emphasizes that whether a policy ultimately provides coverage can be different from whether the policy “is or may be relevant” to evaluating the prospective claim during the disclosure period.

Then expand from statutory disclosure to the full coverage map

Section 10-3-1117 is a major Colorado advantage, but it should sit inside a broader investigation. Responsibility and insurance can exist outside the first named insured and the first automobile policy.

Driver policyPersonal or commercial policy covering the person operating the vehicle.

Owner policyInsurance tied to the vehicle owner or another covered auto.

Household coverageResident-relative, household or other-auto policy leads.

Employer coverageCommercial auto, hired/non-owned auto, business-use or employer liability layers.

TNC / deliveryRideshare, delivery-platform or app-period insurance triggered by vehicle use.

Rental / borrowed vehicleRenter, owner, rental company, nonowned-auto or contractual coverage.

Umbrella / excessCoverage sitting above an underlying automobile liability policy.

Self-insuranceFleet or other qualifying financial-responsibility structures rather than an ordinary policy.

Contractual insuranceInsurance requirements in business, contractor or transportation agreements.

UM/UIMThe injured person's own underinsured/uninsured motorist protection.

MedPayFirst-party medical-payments coverage independent of fault.

Collision / propertyFirst-party vehicle-damage coverage and related contractual benefits.

The coverage map is evidence-driven. Do not invent hidden coverage. Identify concrete leads — ownership, employment, vehicle use, contracts, household relationships, additional vehicles, policy references, reservation-of-rights letters or insurer communications — and pursue the records each lead reasonably supports.

2026 authority map: disclosure scope and limitations are still developing

Colorado's disclosure statute now has several important decisions. Their roles are different. Keep holdings, persuasive federal predictions and pending-review status separate.

Reynolds v. Great Northern Ins. Co. · 2023 COA 77

One-year / Day-31 rule

Reynolds treats § 10-3-1117 as an action for a statutory penalty, applies the one-year limitations period in § 13-80-103(1)(d), and treats the claim as accruing on the 31st day after receipt of the request.

Published Colorado Court of Appeals

Weatherill v. State Farm · 2026 COA 11M

Two-year / discovery rule

Weatherill expressly declines to follow Reynolds. It treats the action as subject to the two-year catchall period and discovery/should-have-discovered accrual. The case involved an automobile-policy response that omitted a $1 million umbrella policy.

Published division conflict · Supreme Court currentness gate

Bohanan v. Esurance · 2026 COA 6

“Is or may be relevant”

Bohanan held that a policy may have to be produced even where the insurer ultimately contends it did not cover the collision. The coverage question itself can make the policy relevant to a prospective claim evaluation.

Published Colorado Court of Appeals · certiorari status recheck

Fogel v. Shelter Mutual · 10th Cir. May 21, 2026

Complete policy and one per-claim remedy

Applying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit required production of complete potentially relevant policies and rejected insurer-selected excerpts. It also treated the statutory $100/day remedy as one per claim rather than multiplying it by each unanswered request.

Federal unpublished / nonprecedential · persuasive

Current-authority rule: do not write that Weatherill “overruled” Reynolds. One Colorado Court of Appeals division cannot formally overrule another. They are conflicting published decisions unless and until controlling review, legislation or later authority resolves the split.

Noncompliance has consequences — and disclosure carries confidentiality duties

Day 31

$100 per day

Section 10-3-1117(3) provides statutory damages of $100 per day beginning on and including the 31st day after receipt of the claimant's written request and continuing until the required information is provided.

Enforcement

Fees & costs

The statute also makes a noncomplying insurer responsible for attorney fees and costs incurred by a claimant in enforcing the statutory remedy.

Confidentiality

Do not publish the disclosure

Section 10-3-1117(4) restricts the claimant and claimant's attorney from disclosing the specified policy information to other parties, subject to the statute's express exception allowing discussion with the claimant's insurer.

Limitations law is a live issue. Because Reynolds and Weatherill state conflicting rules about the applicable limitations period and accrual, do not calculate an enforcement deadline from a summary page. Check the current Colorado Supreme Court posture, current statute and controlling authority before relying on a limitations conclusion.

Existing VictimsGuide Colorado tools remain part of Guide 03

The standardized guide becomes the doctrinal hub. Existing request and workflow pages remain useful operational tools rather than being discarded.

Legacy Policy Disclosure Guide Existing detailed Colorado disclosure resource to mine and preserve during normalization. Policy Disclosure & Liability Limits Current Public Legal Library authority-controlled disclosure resource. Request Policy Disclosures Operational request tool for building a written disclosure record. § 10-3-1117 Compliance Help Process-oriented resource addressing statutory disclosure compliance. Clean Claim System Coverage map, chronology and claim-file organization tools. Hidden Insurance 20 Illusions companion page addressing incomplete coverage visibility.

Primary authority map

Guide 03 should be maintained as a current-law page because the statute's enforcement and appellate interpretation are actively developing.

C.R.S. § 10-3-1117 Required automobile policy disclosures

Insured requests, claimant requests, scope, 30-day period, remedy, confidentiality and claimant definition.

Official CRS portal →

Regulation 5-2-03 · 3 CCR 702-5 Requests for automobile policy information

Colorado DOI rule implementing request routing, response process, policy definition and reporting requirements.

Colorado Code of Regulations →

2026 COA 6 Bohanan v. Esurance

Published interpretation of “is or may be relevant” and disclosure despite an insurer's asserted coverage position.

Court of Appeals opinions →

2026 COA 11M Weatherill v. State Farm

Published limitations/accrual decision expressly declining Reynolds and involving omitted umbrella coverage.

Court of Appeals opinions →

2023 COA 77 Reynolds v. Great Northern

Published one-year penalty / Day-31 accrual rule now in express conflict with Weatherill.

Court of Appeals opinions →

10th Cir. · May 21, 2026 Fogel v. Shelter Mutual

Persuasive federal appellate application of Colorado law concerning complete potentially relevant policies and the per-claim remedy.

Tenth Circuit opinions →

Publication currentness gate: before relying on the limitations discussion, recheck Colorado Supreme Court No. 2026SC240 (Weatherill). Before relying on Bohanan's final appellate posture, recheck No. 2026SC158. A petition or pending review can alter how a published intermediate appellate decision should be described and used.

Frequently asked questions

Can a Colorado crash claimant request liability policy information before filing a lawsuit?

Yes. C.R.S. § 10-3-1117(2)(a) creates a pre-suit disclosure process for qualifying commercial or personal automobile liability coverage. The written request must be sent to the insurer's registered agent and the statute gives the insurer 30 calendar days after receipt to provide the required information.

What information must the insurer provide?

For each known policy of the named insured, including excess or umbrella insurance, that is or may be relevant to the claim, the statute calls for the insurer name, names of insured parties as they appear on the declarations page, liability limits and a copy of the policy.

Does the insurer have to provide the declarations page?

Regulation 5-2-03 distinguishes the “policy” from the declarations page and application. The statute separately requires the insured names and liability limits. The response therefore should be audited by category rather than assuming a declarations page and policy are the same document.

What if the insurer says a policy does not provide coverage?

That assertion does not automatically resolve the disclosure question. Bohanan held that a policy can be “relevant” or potentially relevant to evaluating a prospective claim even when the insurer ultimately asserts there is no coverage. The facts and current appellate status still must be checked.

Does § 10-3-1117 require disclosure of umbrella insurance?

The statute expressly refers to each known relevant policy of the named insured, “including excess or umbrella insurance.” Weatherill itself involved an omitted $1 million umbrella policy.

What happens after 30 days if the required information has not been provided?

Section 10-3-1117(3) provides $100 per day beginning on and including the 31st day after receipt of the claimant's written request until the required information is provided, along with attorney fees and costs incurred enforcing the statutory remedy. Limitations issues require a current-authority check.

Can I publish the other driver's disclosed insurance information?

Section 10-3-1117(4) contains a confidentiality restriction on the claimant and claimant's attorney. It expressly permits discussion with the claimant's insurer, but public posting or broader dissemination should not be assumed permissible.

Does a compliant § 10-3-1117 response prove there is no other coverage?

No. The statute is an important auto-liability disclosure tool, but a complete crash coverage investigation can require separate inquiry into owners, employers, businesses, TNCs, rental arrangements, household coverage, contracts, self-insurance and the claimant's own first-party policies.

Which limitations rule controls — Reynolds or Weatherill?

The two published Colorado Court of Appeals decisions conflict. Reynolds applies a one-year penalty limitation and Day-31 accrual; Weatherill expressly declines Reynolds and applies a two-year catchall period with discovery-based accrual. Current Colorado Supreme Court status must be checked before relying on either rule as the final controlling answer.

The working file you should be able to hand to a reviewer

A clean coverage investigation should let another reviewer reconstruct the disclosure process and understand what remains unknown without guessing.

Crash date and liability claim notice date.
At-fault driver and vehicle owner names.
Exact legal name of every identified insurer.
Written § 10-3-1117 request.
Registered-agent source record.
Proof and date of request delivery.
Day-30 and Day-31 calendar entries.
All insurer responses and attachments.
Policy and form inventory showing what was produced.
Liability-limit inventory by policy.
Excess/umbrella inquiry and response.
Insured-party written disclosure, if requested.
Employer, commercial, TNC, rental, household or other coverage leads.
Reservation-of-rights or coverage-position letters.
Claimant UM/UIM, MedPay and collision policy information.
One written list of every unresolved coverage question.

Closing principle: do not let silence, a limits letter, a declarations page, or one policy become the coverage map. Build the map from the statute, the produced contracts and the facts showing where additional responsibility or insurance may exist.

Continue through the Colorado library

← Guide 02 Required Auto Insurance & Minimum Limits. Colorado Library Return to the Colorado state landing page. Next: Guide 04 → Uninsured & Underinsured Motorist Coverage.