# Travelers Insurance Co. v. Savio

> Supreme Court of Colorado · September 30, 1985 · 706 P.2d 1258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851833

## Case

- **Full name:** TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. William A. SAVIO, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Colorado
- **Decided:** September 30, 1985
- **Citations:** 706 P.2d 1258; 54 U.S.L.W. 2228; 1985 Colo. LEXIS 513
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Erickson
- **Judges:** Kirshbaum, Erickson, Rovira, Neighbors
- **Cited by:** 269 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851833

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an insurer’s failure to pay a valid claim is a failure to perform under the insurance contract that can support a bad faith claim if the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for its failure to pay
- holding that "covered employee stands in the same position as an insured in a private insurance contract"
- recognizing a breach-of-duty action by an employee against a workers’ compensation carrier even though the carrier issued its policy to the employer
- stating that “an insurance company, however, may challenge claims which are fairly debatable”

## Opinion text

*1277 ERICKSON, Justice,
dissenting:
In my view, Colorado’s Workmen’s Compensation Act precludes Savio’s tort claim against Travelers in this case.
The Colorado Workmen’s Compensation Act (the Act) was intended by the General Assembly to provide an exclusive remedy for workers to recover an award for an industrial injury. The Act defines and limits the scope and amount of recovery available to injured workers. Insurers necessarily rely on the statutory scheme and agree to provide coverage to employers for the liability outlined in the Act.
In my view, we should not expand liability to include employee claims of insurer misconduct when the employee’s “underlying injury” is covered by the Act and the employee has statutory remedies available under the Act to ensure prompt payment of a claim. §§ 8-53-103, -116, 3 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). If an expansion of liability is to occur, it should be made by the General Assembly, as the legislature in California did, and not by judicial fiat. See Unruh v. Truck Insurance Exchange, 7 Cal.3d 616 , 498 P.2d 1063 , 102 Cal.Rptr. 815 (1972). A majority of states having workmen’s compensation statutes (with “exclusivity” provisions like Colorado’s) do not allow common-law tort claims for bad faith or negligent insurer delays in payment of employee claims covered by the compensation statute. Robertson v. Travelers Insurance Co., 95 Ill.2d 441 , 69 Ill.Dec. 954 , 448 N.E.2d 866 (1983); 2A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation § 68.34(c) (1983).
If a judicial remedy is to be created, I believe that the standard of care owed by insurers should be one of reasonable care (a negligence standard). Savio’s “first-party” claim is not sufficiently distinguishable from the “third-party” claim in Farmers Group, Inc. v. Trimble, 691 P.2d 1138 (Colo.1984), to justify application of the significantly different standard of care formulated by the court here.
Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and affirm the district court’s dismissal of Savio’s claim.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9851833. Public record. Not legal advice.