Citizen’s Guide to Colorado Tier 0 Through Tier 5 Auto Insurance, MedPay, UM/UIM, and Why Disclosure Matters
Colorado’s disclosure law was necessary because a crash victim cannot intelligently value or route a claim without knowing whether the at-fault side is uninsured, carrying only the legal minimum, carrying a higher personal package, protected by umbrella or excess coverage, or operating inside a commercial auto program. Those differences control whether the victim is limited to a thin third-party claim, whether UM/UIM is triggered, and whether the claimant is being pushed into litigation blind.
On this page
- The core correction
- Colorado’s fixed legal floor
- Tier 0 through Tier 5
- Health insurance is not full injury compensation
- MedPay and the package problem
- How UM/UIM is measured in a fault state
- Tier comparison table
- All-occupant compression table
- Why disclosure is the only fair result
- Why Colorado matters to western-state reform
- Authorities and source links
The core correction
An uninsured driver will not have a roadside proof-of-insurance document at all. Colorado law requires insurers to provide a proof of insurance certificate or insurance identification card when a policy is issued or renewed. That document exists only in the insured world.
That is why a claimant cannot infer much from what is handed over at the scene. The proof-of-insurance card shows that a policy exists. It does not show the liability limits, it does not show whether MedPay or UM/UIM exists, and it does not show umbrella, excess, fleet, or commercial layers. Those coverage amounts live on the declarations page and in the policy documents, not on the roadside card.
Colorado’s fixed legal floor
Colorado’s minimum personal-auto liability package is a single fixed legal floor: $25,000 for bodily injury or death to one person, $50,000 for bodily injury or death to all persons in one accident, and $15,000 for property damage in one accident. Higher coverages may be purchased.
Colorado also requires $5,000 of MedPay unless the named insured rejects it in writing or in the same medium used for the application. If the insurer cannot prove a valid rejection, the policy is presumed to include that $5,000 MedPay layer.
Colorado requires insurers to offer UM/UIM in an amount equal to the policyholder’s bodily-injury liability limits unless the insured rejects or reduces that coverage. Colorado’s UM/UIM statute says that this coverage is in addition to legal liability coverage and covers the difference, if any, between legal liability coverage and the damages sustained, up to the UM/UIM coverage obtained. The amount available is not reduced by a setoff from liability insurance, MedPay, health insurance, or other UM/UIM insurance.
Fixed Tier 1 floor
Colorado’s legal minimum is 25/50/15. It is not one of several equal legal minimums.
Default MedPay
$5,000 is presumed to exist unless properly rejected.
UM/UIM offer rule
Must be offered up to the insured’s BI limits unless rejected or reduced.
Disclosure rule
Colorado requires a 30-day response to a proper policy-information request.
Tier 0 through Tier 5
For reform purposes, Colorado’s coverage world is easier to understand if it is organized into clear public-facing tiers.
| Tier | Coverage description | What the victim is really facing |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 0 | Uninsured / no liability policy | No third-party liability layer at all. The victim looks to any personal claim against the driver, plus the victim’s own UM if purchased, plus MedPay and health insurance. |
| Tier 1 | Colorado legal minimum personal auto: 25/50/15, with default 5k MedPay unless rejected | The victim can pursue the at-fault driver’s policy to these low limits, then may need to pursue their own UIM up to the purchased limits. |
| Tier 2 | Common upgraded personal bundle: 50/100/25 | Still a modest package, but stronger than the floor. It remains vulnerable in a serious trauma case. |
| Tier 3 | Common higher personal bundle: 100/300/100 | Often the first package that looks like serious household asset protection. It also supports a stronger matching UM/UIM layer. |
| Tier 4 | High personal package: 250/500/100 | A more substantial personal-auto stack, often used before umbrella or excess is added. |
| Tier 5 | Commercial auto and umbrella/excess | Commercial auto is often written at around a $1 million combined single limit, with commercial umbrella commonly sold in $1 million increments above that. |
Health insurance is not full injury compensation
This point must be stated clearly. Health insurance can help pay covered medical bills. Colorado’s own consumer explanation of MedPay is built around that idea: a person may have health insurance and still face deductibles, copayments, and other significant medical costs after a crash.
But health insurance is not a substitute for liability insurance, UM/UIM, or a civil damages claim. Colorado statutes defining noneconomic loss recognize categories such as pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, physical impairment or disfigurement, and impairment of the quality of life. Health insurance does not compensate those losses.
This is exactly why thin liability and thin MedPay products are so dangerous. A person without robust health coverage can burn through MedPay almost immediately. A person with health insurance may still see the bills paid while receiving no compensation for pain and suffering, permanent impairment, wage loss, or diminished quality of life unless liability or UM/UIM coverage responds.
MedPay and the package problem
Colorado law clearly fixes only one MedPay number: $5,000, unless rejected. The same statute also says nothing in the MedPay section limits other coverage amounts being made available by an insurer.
That means the public should understand Colorado MedPay this way:
- $5,000 MedPay is the statutory default floor, not an adequate trauma-care solution.
- Higher MedPay amounts may be offered and purchased.
- In the market, households that buy stronger BI packages often also buy stronger MedPay, but that indexing is a marketing and underwriting pattern, not a statewide statutory ladder.
| MedPay level | Status | Citizen explanation |
|---|---|---|
| $5,000 | Colorado statutory default unless rejected | The ordinary base layer. In a serious crash, this can be consumed rapidly by ambulance transport, emergency department intake, imaging, trauma care, or an early hospital stay. |
| $10,000 | Common higher marketed selection | A stronger first-party medical cushion for households that understand how fast early treatment costs accumulate. |
| $25,000 | Common higher-end marketed selection | Often seen where the buyer is more intentional about matching MedPay to BI and UM/UIM protection. |
| $50,000 and more | Carrier-specific and not universal | These levels show that the market can offer much more than the statutory default, even though Colorado law itself does not publish a universal MedPay schedule above 5k. |
The higher MedPay levels are presented here as common market examples for public understanding. They are not statutory requirements.
How UM/UIM is measured in a Colorado fault state
Colorado is a comparative-fault state. If the injured person’s negligence is not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, damages are reduced proportionately. If the injured person’s negligence is equal to or greater than the negligence of that person, the claim is barred.
For a victim trying to understand UM/UIM, the measuring sequence is:
- Determine total bodily injury damages.
- Reduce those damages for the victim’s own percentage of fault, if any.
- Measure the at-fault driver’s third-party liability limits.
- Measure any remaining unpaid bodily injury damages against the victim’s UM/UIM limits.
- Remember that Colorado UM/UIM does not cover damage to the insured’s own vehicle. That is a property-damage or collision/comprehensive issue.
Tier comparison table for a Colorado bodily-injury claim
This table is designed to show the package logic, not to promise payment. Real recovery is always limited by provable damages, available policies, comparative fault, and the policy terms that govern the claim.
| Victim’s own package | At-fault tier | Third-party bodily-injury ceiling | Possible UM/UIM role | Why disclosure changes everything |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: 25/50/15 + UM/UIM 25/50 + default 5k MedPay | Tier 0: uninsured | $0 | The victim’s UM becomes the only meaningful bodily-injury insurance layer | The claimant needs confirmation that there is truly no third-party coverage and no hidden commercial or permissive-use layer. |
| Tier 1: 25/50/15 + UM/UIM 25/50 + default 5k MedPay | Tier 1: legal minimum 25/50/15 | Up to $25,000 for one victim | UIM may still matter if damages exceed the at-fault driver’s thin limits | The claimant still needs to know whether the at-fault side really stops at the legal minimum or whether other policies exist. |
| Tier 2: 50/100/25 + UM/UIM 50/100 + higher MedPay | Tier 1: legal minimum 25/50/15 | Up to $25,000 for one victim | Classic underinsured case; the victim’s own UIM may carry most of the real protection | Without disclosure, the victim cannot know if the case is truly minimum-limits or whether a higher layer is hiding behind the driver. |
| Tier 3: 100/300/100 + UM/UIM 100/300 + higher MedPay | Tier 2: 50/100/25 | Up to $50,000 for one victim | The UIM layer may become the serious recovery layer in a trauma case | The first-party carrier will often want proof of the third-party stack before fully valuing the UIM claim. |
| Tier 4: 250/500/100 + UM/UIM 250/500 + stronger MedPay | Tier 3 or 4 personal package | From $100,000 to $250,000 for one victim, depending on the actual tier | The victim’s UIM may still matter in a catastrophic injury case | A claimant should not have to guess whether the at-fault side is at 100k, 250k, or something larger. |
| Any strong personal package | Tier 5 commercial auto and umbrella/excess | Often around $1M commercial primary, with excess layers above | UM/UIM may become smaller or unnecessary if robust liability coverage exists | This is the reform point in its clearest form: disclosure tells the victim whether the case is a minimum-limits problem or a commercial-coverage case. |
All-occupant compression table
Split-limit packages create a second misunderstanding. The first number is not automatically available to every injured occupant. Once multiple people are injured, the per-accident cap compresses what each person can actually receive.
| Package | 1 injured person | 2 injured persons | 3 injured persons | 4 injured persons |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25/50/15 | $25,000 | $25,000 each | $16,667 each | $12,500 each |
| 50/100/25 | $50,000 | $50,000 each | $33,333 each | $25,000 each |
| 100/300/100 | $100,000 | $100,000 each | $100,000 each | $75,000 each |
| 250/500/100 | $250,000 | $250,000 each | $166,667 each | $125,000 each |
Equal-share illustrations only. Real outcomes depend on injury severity, available policies, settlement order, and litigation posture.
Why disclosure is the only fair result
Colorado requires an insurer, within 30 days after a proper written request, to disclose the insurer name, the names of insured parties as shown on the declarations page, the liability limits, and a copy of each known relevant policy, including potentially relevant umbrella or excess coverage. The statute imposes a $100-per-day penalty after day 30, plus attorney fees and costs.
The Division of Insurance also makes clear that the disclosure packet is not the same thing as the roadside proof card. The process is designed to answer the questions the proof card cannot answer.
Why Colorado matters to western-state reform
Colorado gives the western reform group a working model because it recognizes that insurance information is not a private tactical luxury. It is the measuring tool for settlement, UIM triggering, and rational claim handling.
Across the West, the same pattern keeps repeating:
- minimum liability is sold because it is cheaper;
- MedPay stays thin unless the buyer actively purchases more;
- UM/UIM is sold as protection against underinsured drivers;
- the claimant then needs to know the real third-party stack to measure whether the UM/UIM benefit is actually in play;
- without disclosure, the claimant is pressured either to settle blind or to sue blind.