Stresscon v. Travelers: A Victory For Policy Holders

by Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

On September 12, the construction and insurance communities received much sought-after guidance from the Colorado Court of Appeals regarding Colorado’s recently adopted bad faith statute in the highly anticipated decision, Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America[1].  The Court affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the insured, Stresscon, and clarified Colorado law concerning an insured’s right to protect itself when it has been abandoned by its insurer. 

Factual Background

The case arose from a construction accident on a Fort Carson construction project.  Stresscon, the precast concrete subcontractor, faced a claim for delay and damages from the general contractor when a crane accident caused damage and delays to the project.  The general contractor asserted a claim against Stresscon who, in turn, tendered the claim to its liability insurer, Travelers, its subcontractors responsible for the accident, and their respective liability insurers.

Stresscon’s insurer, Travelers, responded with a reservation of rights stating, among other things, its policy might not cover the delay damages sought by the general contractor.  Later, Travelers sent a letter to the general contractor denying that Stresscon was liable to the general contractor.  Based on these and other communications, as well as Travelers’ failure to investigate or adjust the claim, Stresscon concluded Travelers had abandoned it and that it had no choice but to settle with the general contractor or face costly and protracted arbitration.  Following the settlement, Stresscon sued Travelers for common law and statutory bad faith breach of the insurance policy; its subcontractors involved in the accident for breach of contract arising from their failure to indemnify Stresscon for the accident-related damages; and the subcontractors’ liability insurers for common law and statutory bad faith.  Upon learning of the earlier settlement, Travelers asserted Stresscon had violated the provision of the policy that treats a settlement without Travelers’ consent as a voluntary payment, without coverage.

Following a jury trial, the Court awarded Stresscon damages from its subcontractor.  The subcontractor’s liability insurer paid the judgment and was dismissed from the case.  Stresscon’s claims against Travelers proceeded to a second jury trial.  The Jury returned a verdict in Stresscon’s favor and against Travelers under the bad faith statute based on Travelers’ failure to indemnify Stresscon, finding: (1) Travelers unreasonably denied Stresscon’s claim; (2) Travelers had not been prejudiced by Stresscon’s settlement with the general contractor without Travelers’ consent; and (3) Travelers’ policy covered a substantial portion of the damages awarded during the subcontractor trial.  The trial court ordered the insurance company to pay the damages, the statutory penalty, and awarded Stresscon attorneys’ fees and interest.

The Appeal

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals addressed a number of issues, including:

  1. The Notice-Prejudice Rule Applies To Pre-Litigation Settlements
    The Court first addressed whether an insured’s breach of the no voluntary payments clause is a per se bar on enforcing the policy in the context of a pre-suit settlement.  The no voluntary payments clause appears in many policies and generally prohibits insureds from settling claims without the insurer’s consent.

    The Court of Appeals confirmed an insured’s violation of the voluntary payments provision does not void coverage unless the insurer suffers prejudice from the settlement.  Under the notice prejudice rule, if an insured does not notify its insurer of a claim until after the insured has settled the claim, then the insurer is presumed to be prejudiced and excused from coverage.  The insured may present evidence to rebut that presumption, however, in which case (if successful) the burden shifts back to the insurer to prove it was actually prejudiced by the lack of notice. 

    The Court confirmed the notice-prejudice rule applies to the voluntary payments provision and held “(1) the notice-prejudice rule should apply in these circumstances; (2) an insured’s pre-litigation settlement with a third party does not conclusively establish that an insurer was prejudiced; and (3) sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the jury’s finding that the insurance company was not prejudiced.”  The Court further concluded that allocation of the settlement between covered and uncovered claims is not required.

  2. Travelers Unreasonably Delayed or Denied the Claim
    The Court also affirmed the jury’s verdict finding Travelers had unreasonably delayed or denied the claim, despite the fact that Stresscon settled with the general contractor before any lawsuit was filed.  As support, the Court cited to  (1) Travelers’ reservation of rights letters; (2) Travelers’ inaction to determine the amount of Stresscon’s liability; (3) Travelers failure to adjust the claim; (4) Stresscon’s statement that it felt “abandoned” by Travelers; (5) Travelers’ refusal to adjust or pay the claim upon receipt of notice of the settlement; and (6) Stresscon’s expert’s testimony that a reasonable insurer would have determined the covered amount of the settlement and paid that amount within sixty days of learning of the settlement.

  3. A Prevailing Party Is Entitled To “Fees-on-Fees”
    The trial court awarded Stresscon attorneys’ fees under Section 10-3-1116, C.R.S., (the bad faith statute) as the prevailing party, but failed to award Stresscon the fees it incurred in bringing the fee request (“fees-on-fees”).  The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding “a request for ‘fees-on-fees’ in connection with a section 10-3-1116(1) claim would be, like requests for ‘reasonable attorney fees and court costs and two times the covered benefit,’ a request for damages.”  The Court further concluded the trial court erred when it reduced Stresscon’s fee award in ruling Stresscon was not entitled to its fees-on-fees associated with the fee hearing.  The Court remanded the action to the trial court to determine and award Stresscon its reasonable “fees-on-fees” and to determining a reasonable amount of fees and costs incurred by Stresscon in defending the statutory bad faith judgment on appeal.

    Judge Jones issued a special concurring opinion on the fees-on-fees issue.  Analyzing the distinctions between attorneys’ fees as damages versus attorneys’ fees as costs, Judge Jones determined the bad faith statute is ambiguous on this point.  Ultimately, Judge Jones concluded “that subsection 10-3-1116(1) provides for an award of attorneys fees (and costs) incurred in the statutory action against the insurer – that is, those fees incurred as costs.”  Thus, “[i]t follows that the concrete company is entitled to an award of fees-on-fees.”


The Stresscon opinion represents a significant victory for policy holders in Colorado.  Stay tuned for a more detailed analysis of the Court’s holdings on the various issues it address, which will be the subject of future client advisories.

 [1] Stresscon Corporation v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, 2013 CA 131 (Sept. 12, 2013). 


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sherman & Howard L.L.C. | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.