10-4-629. Cancellation - renewal - reclassification.
Statute text
(1) Except in accordance with the provisions of this part 6, an insurer shall not cancel or fail to renew a policy of insurance that complies with this part 6, issued in this state, as to any resident of the household of the named insured, for any reason other than nonpayment of premium, or increase a premium for any coverage on any such policy unless the increase is part of a general increase in premiums filed with the commissioner and does not result from a reclassification of the insured, or reduce the coverage under any such policy unless the reduction is part of a general reduction in coverage filed with the commissioner or to satisfy the requirements of other sections of this part 6.
(2) An insurer intending to take an action subject to this section shall, on or before the thirtieth day before the effective date of the intended action, send written notice by United States mail of its intended action to the insured at the insured's last-known address. The insurer may include the notice of the intended action in the renewal documents, nonrenewal, or cancellation notice provided to the policyholder, as applicable. The notice must state in clear and specific terms, on a form for which the insurer has filed a certification with the commissioner that such notice form conforms to Colorado law and any rules promulgated by the commissioner:
(a) The proposed action to be taken, including, if the action is an increase in premium or reduction in coverage, the amount of increase and the type of coverage to which it is applicable or the type of coverage reduced and the extent of the reduction;
(b) The proposed effective date of the action;
(c) The insurer's actual reasons for proposing to take such action. The statement of reasons shall be sufficiently clear and specific so that a person of average intelligence can identify the basis for the insurer's decision without making further inquiry. Generalized terms such as "personal habits", "living conditions", "poor morale", or "violation or accident record" shall not suffice to meet the requirements of this subsection (2).
(d) If there is coupled with the notice an offer to continue or renew the policy in accordance with this section, the name of the person or persons to be excluded from coverage and what the premium would be if the policy is continued or renewed with such person or persons excluded from coverage;
(e) The right of the insured to replace the insurance through an assigned risk plan;
(f) The right of the insured to file a complaint with the division of insurance regarding the action that is the subject of the notice.
(g) and (h) Repealed.
(3) Any statement of reasons contained in the notice given pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of this section shall be privileged and shall not constitute grounds for any action against the insurer or its representatives or any person who in good faith furnished to the insurer the information upon which the statement is based.
(4) to (8) Repealed.
(9) This section does not apply to an insurance policy or coverage that has been in effect less than sixty days at the time the insurer mails or delivers the notice of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reclassification, unless it is a renewal policy.
History
Source: L. 2003: Entire section added, p. 1566, 3, effective July 1. L. 2004: (6) amended, p. 178, 1, effective July 1; (2)(d) amended, p. 1190, 14, effective August 4. L. 2010: (6) amended, (HB 10-1220), ch. 197, p. 853, 14, effective July 1. L. 2012: IP(2), (2)(f), and (9) amended and (2)(g), (2)(h), and (4) to (8) repealed, (HB 12-1289), ch. 95, p. 311, 1, effective August 8.
Annotations
Editor's note: This section was originally numbered as 10-4-626 in House Bill 03-1188 but has been renumbered on revision for ease of location.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Annotator's note. Since this section is similar to 10-4-720 as it existed prior to the 2003 repeal of part 7 of article 4 of this title, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.
Endorsement was not a decrease in coverage requiring approval by the Commissioner since the household exclusion was not void and since the statute containing the legislative declaration on the household exclusion was enacted at the time the policy was in effect. Coffman v. Coffman, 865 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1993).
The statute is not clear and unambiguous with respect to whether an insurer, when providing the required notice to an insured, must refer to the rule, policy, or guidelines on which it bases its decision. Requiring such a reference is a reasonable interpretation that is not arbitrary, capricious, or inconsistent with statute, and the commissioner's disallowance of a proposed increase of premium charged to an insured was upheld accordingly. Colo. Div. of Ins. v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 961 P.2d 1158 (Colo. App. 1998).
Notice requirements of this section do not apply to binders because binders are not "insurance policies". Unigard Sec. Ins. v. Mission Ins. Co., 12 P.3d 296 (Colo. App. 2000).