The strongest Colorado procurement question is usually the most specific one

Colorado's foundational rule does not ask whether the customer generally hoped to be “fully covered.” It asks whether the producer agreed to obtain particular insurance and then failed to obtain it or failed to disclose that it could not be obtained.

Strong request

“Add $250,000/$500,000 liability limits.”

A stated coverage and limit can create a clear procurement task that can be compared directly with the declarations and policy issued.

Strong request

“Cover this vehicle for business use.”

A concrete use request can become critical where a personal policy later invokes a business-use or delivery exclusion.

Weakly defined

“Give me good coverage.”

General expressions of adequacy are harder to turn into an identified procurement undertaking than a written request for particular protection.

Bayly, Martin & Fay v. Pete's Satire, 739 P.2d 239: Colorado's Supreme Court states the procurement rule directly: when an insurance agent or broker agrees to obtain a particular form of insurance, the producer has a duty to obtain it or notify the customer of the failure or inability to do so.

Citizen rule: turn insurance shopping into a written specification. Coverage type, limits, vehicle, drivers, use, named insured, umbrella/excess request and material endorsements should be identifiable before the policy is issued.

An ordinary Colorado agent must use reasonable care — but is not automatically a comprehensive risk manager

Colorado draws a deliberate boundary between procuring requested insurance and volunteering every additional insurance product the customer might need.

Colorado insurance producer duty comparison.
Situation	Colorado starting rule	Primary authority
Specific coverage requested and producer agrees to obtain it	Use reasonable care to procure the requested insurance or notify customer that it was not obtained.	Bayly; DC-10
Customer never asks about a particular optional coverage	No general continuing duty to volunteer every additional coverage or limit.	Kaercher; Apodaca
Producer says the requested protection exists	Procurement and/or misrepresentation issues can arise if the issued policy does not match the representation.	Bayly; Pete's Satire; Colorado Pool Systems
Customer wants complete financial-risk planning	Ordinary producer relationship alone does not transform the producer into a guarantor of complete protection.	Kaercher; Apodaca

Apodaca's auto-insurance lesson: an agent who sold an umbrella policy was not held to a general common-law duty to volunteer UM/UIM coverage in that umbrella where the customer had simply requested an umbrella policy. The actual request controls the procurement inquiry.

A broader advisory duty requires more than the normal producer relationship

Kaercher recognizes a possible special relationship based on “entrustment”: the producer has assumed responsibilities beyond those of an ordinary reasonable insurance agent.

Not enough by itself

Producer says “I know insurance”

General expertise and routine recommendations do not automatically create an enhanced legal duty.

Not enough by itself

Long relationship

Years of renewals, familiarity or ordinary policy reviews do not necessarily establish entrustment.

Potentially important

Additional undertaking

Special duties become more plausible where the producer actually assumes responsibilities beyond normal sales/procurement activity and the insured entrusts insurance decisions to that undertaking.

Do not plead “fiduciary” from the business card. Colorado does not treat every producer as a personal financial counselor or comprehensive risk manager. Any enhanced-duty theory should identify the specific undertaking, entrustment and reliance rather than merely the producer's title.

2026 current-law illustration — nonprecedential: Wyss v. Campbell and Mayfield v. DeLaCroix, both decided February 12, 2026, followed Kaercher and rejected attempts to create an enhanced duty from ordinary producer activities, expertise, familiarity or policy recommendations. Both opinions are expressly unpublished under C.A.R. 35(e).

What the producer said can matter separately from what the producer failed to obtain

A procurement claim and a negligent-misrepresentation claim can arise from the same transaction but ask different questions.

Comparison of failure-to-procure and negligent-misrepresentation theories.
Theory	Core factual question	Evidence
Failure to procure	Did the producer agree to obtain particular insurance and fail to do so?	Request, quote, application, binder, producer notes, declarations, policy and endorsements.
Negligent misrepresentation	Did the producer supply materially false coverage information without reasonable care and did the customer justifiably rely?	Emails, texts, oral confirmation evidence, written summaries and the policy contradicting or supporting the representation.
Fraud / intentional misrepresentation	Was there knowingly or intentionally false conduct meeting the distinct fraud elements?	Intent evidence, communications, transaction documents and reliance/damages proof.

Colorado Pool Systems, 2012 COA 178: policy access is relevant to whether reliance on a coverage representation was justifiable. But the court declined to make policy receipt an automatic bar where the policy language itself was ambiguous.

Regulatory overlay: C.R.S. § 10-2-801 authorizes producer discipline for conduct including misrepresentation of actual or proposed insurance terms, fraud, unfair trade practices, dishonesty and incompetence.

The best time to discover a procurement error is before the crash

Colorado places meaningful responsibility on policyholders to read their insurance. The declarations page provides a fast first audit; the complete policy and endorsements provide the legal answer.

1 Save request

Coverage, limits, vehicles, drivers, use and endorsements.

2 Save quote

Compare options and representations with the request.

3 Read declarations

Named insured, vehicle, coverage parts and limits.

4 Read endorsements

Exclusions, driver changes, business use and amendments.

5 Correct errors

Notify producer and insurer promptly in writing.

6 Recheck renewal

Do not assume last year's requested protection remained unchanged.

Usick / Mayfield warning: Colorado cases recognize a policyholder's duty to read the issued policy. Clear written policy terms can substantially undermine later reliance on a contrary oral statement, particularly across later renewals.

But keep the inquiries separate. Reading the policy is important. It does not rewrite history about what the producer agreed to procure. A specific written request plus a producer undertaking remains materially different from a customer's failure to ask for optional coverage.

Colorado regulates the producer relationship separately from the negligence claim

C.R.S. § 10-2-401 License required / statutory representation

Insurance producers must be properly licensed. A producer soliciting or negotiating an application on behalf of an insurer is statutorily regarded as representing the insurer in insurer-insured controversies.

Official CRS portal →

C.R.S. § 10-2-704 Fiduciary responsibility for premium funds

Premium and unearned-premium funds handled by producers receive fiduciary treatment. This money-handling rule should not be expanded into a universal fiduciary advisory duty.

Official CRS portal →

C.R.S. § 10-2-801 Producer discipline

Misrepresentation of insurance terms, unfair trade practices, fraud, dishonesty, incompetence and insurance-law violations can support regulatory action.

Official CRS portal →

C.R.S. § 10-3-131 Insurer responsibility for producer misconduct

An authorized insurer that knew or should have known about specified unfair producer practices committed on its behalf may be financially responsible under the statute.

Official CRS portal →

Regulatory violation and civil liability are different tracks. A producer can face licensing discipline without every violation automatically establishing all elements of a private negligence claim. Conversely, a civil procurement claim requires its own duty, breach, causation and damages analysis.

A missing policy is actionable only if the missing insurance could have changed the loss

Bayly makes availability part of causation and damages. The insured must connect the requested-but-missing insurance to a real insurance product and to the actual uncovered loss.

Colorado failure-to-procure causation and damages analysis.
Question	Proof to obtain
What insurance was specifically requested?	Quote request, email, application, producer notes and testimony.
Did the producer undertake to obtain it?	Confirmation, binder, representation, renewal discussion and transaction record.
Was that type of insurance generally available?	Contemporaneous market evidence, carrier offerings, underwriting evidence and expert/producer testimony where appropriate.
Would the customer/risk have qualified?	Underwriting criteria, applications, driving record, vehicle/use facts and premium evidence.
Would the missing policy have covered this loss?	Hypothetical/available form, terms, exclusions, limits, endorsements and actual loss facts.
What financial harm resulted?	Uninsured judgment, defense costs, uncovered property/injury loss, lost insurance benefits and other legally recoverable damages.

Bayly's burden: the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the type of requested insurance was generally available in the industry when the producer handled the transaction. The ultimate burden remains with the plaintiff.

Pete's Satire damages principle: the Court of Appeals tied procurement damages to the protection that would have existed had the promised insurance been obtained, including covered liability and defense expense within the promised protection.

Reconstruct the insurance purchase before arguing about the missing coverage

Identify the producer, agency, insurer and producer license information.
Identify the exact policy period in force on the loss date.
Locate every quote request and application.
Locate prior declarations supplied to the producer.
List every coverage type expressly requested.
List requested liability, UM/UIM, MedPay, collision and comprehensive limits.
Identify every vehicle and driver the producer was instructed to insure.
Document personal, commuting, delivery, rideshare or other business-use facts disclosed to the producer.
Identify any requested umbrella, excess or commercial policy.
Preserve emails, texts and written coverage confirmations.
Obtain the binder, declarations, full policy and all endorsements actually issued.
Compare the request and issued policy line by line.
Preserve renewal communications; do not assume an old undertaking automatically controls later renewals.
Identify when the missing coverage was or should have been discovered.
Investigate whether the requested insurance was generally available and whether this risk could have qualified.
Identify exactly how the loss would have been covered had the requested insurance existed.
Calendar any producer-negligence, misrepresentation, contract and underlying crash deadlines separately.

VictimsGuide record principle: preserve the insurance request, the insurance promise and the insurance actually issued as three separate records. Do not reconstruct the purchase transaction solely from the policy after a loss occurs.

Colorado producer-duty authority map

Bayly, Martin & Fay v. Pete's Satire · 739 P.2d 239 (Colo. 1987)

Specific procurement duty

Foundational rule: an agent or broker agreeing to obtain particular insurance must obtain it or notify the customer of failure/inability; plaintiff must prove requested insurance was generally available.

Colorado Supreme Court · foundational

Kaercher v. Sater · 155 P.3d 437 (Colo. App. 2006)

No universal advisory duty

Agents owe reasonable care but ordinarily have no continuing duty to advise, guide or direct customers toward every additional coverage or higher limit. Recognizes possible special relationship based on entrustment.