When a UIM Insurer Stonewalled an Injured Worker in Weld County, We Made It Answer
Result Snapshot
| Case type | Underinsured motorist (UIM) claim with insurance bad faith, arising from a car accident |
|---|---|
| Injury | Severe back injuries |
| Location | Near Fort Lupton, Weld County, Colorado |
| Resolution | The carrier that opened at zero ended up paying beyond its policy limits once its handling was exposed. Total recovery: $1,525,000. |
| Attorneys | Jordan Travis and Todd A. Travis |
| Year | 2025 |
Overview
Our client was doing his job. He was driving a company vehicle to a jobsite, the kind of ordinary morning that millions of working people share, when two drivers blew through a red light at high speed and slammed into the side of his vehicle. The crash left him with severe back injuries and a long road of treatment. Travis Legal Offices, LLC, known as Rampart Injury Lawyers, took the case.
What should have been a straightforward insurance claim became a second fight, this time against the underinsured motorist carrier that was supposed to step in when the at-fault drivers’ coverage ran out. The carrier did not simply offer too little. It refused to evaluate the claim, refused to review the records, and refused to respond to our office at all. Its first offer, once we finally forced one, was zero.
By the end, the total recovery reached $1,525,000, including a UIM payment that went beyond the policy limits because of how the carrier had handled the claim. This page explains what happened, what Colorado law allows, and why a stonewalling insurer can end up owing more than its policy says.
What Happened
The collision happened near Fort Lupton, in Weld County. Our client was on the clock, driving a work vehicle to a jobsite. As he moved through an intersection, two other drivers ran a red light at high speed and struck the side of his vehicle. A T-bone crash drives force straight into the people inside, because the side of a vehicle has far less structure to absorb a blow than the front or the rear. For our client, that force translated into serious injury to his back.
He had done nothing wrong. He was simply going to work.
Injuries and Medical Impact
Our client suffered severe back injuries in the crash. Back injuries are deceptive. From the outside a person can look fine, while the daily reality is pain that interrupts sleep, limits lifting and bending, and turns a physically demanding job into a daily question of whether the body will cooperate. For someone whose livelihood depends on showing up and doing the work, an injury to the spine is not an inconvenience. It threatens the ability to earn a living.
Legal and Insurance Challenges
Two coverage problems shaped this case. The first was the size of the at-fault drivers’ insurance. They carried only $100,000 in bodily injury coverage, nowhere near the value of a severe back injury. That gap is exactly what underinsured motorist coverage exists to close. Because our client was hurt while working, UIM coverage was available to him, and we pursued it.
The second problem was the UIM carrier itself. Instead of evaluating the claim it had been paid premiums to handle, the carrier went silent. It would not review the documents we sent. It would not answer our letters or calls. We had to go before the judge and hold several hearings just to compel the company to communicate with our office. When the carrier finally produced an offer, the number was zero. An insurer that refuses to engage is like a referee who watches a foul and refuses to blow the whistle. The game does not stop being unfair just because the official looks away.
How Rampart Built the Case
We treated the carrier’s silence as evidence, not just an obstacle.
- We documented every unanswered letter, every ignored call, and every missed deadline, building a written record of the carrier’s failure to respond.
- We returned to court and obtained hearings before the judge to force the carrier to engage, turning the company’s refusal to communicate into a visible pattern on the record.
- We assembled the medical proof of the back injuries and the treatment so the value of the claim was clear on paper, even to a carrier that did not want to look.
- We pressed the at-fault drivers’ liability coverage to its $100,000 limit and the first underinsured layer to its $25,000 limit, so every dollar of available coverage was accounted for before we turned to the main UIM policy.
- Most important, we showed that the carrier had mishandled the claim, that it had failed to adjust, review, and respond the way the law requires, and that those failures formed a pattern of unreasonable conduct rather than innocent oversight.
That last point changed the math. A UIM carrier’s promise is a contract, and a contract carries a duty to handle claims reasonably and in good faith. Once the carrier’s own conduct put it on the wrong side of that duty, it faced exposure well beyond the policy limits.
The Result
The case resolved in 2025 for a total of $1,525,000. That figure came from three sources: $100,000 from the at-fault drivers’ bodily injury coverage, $25,000 from the first underinsured motorist layer, and $1,400,000 on the main underinsured motorist policy, which carried a $1,000,000 limit. The extra $400,000 above that limit was driven by the carrier’s bad faith, by the cost of having refused to handle the claim the way Colorado law requires.
Every case is different, and a result in one case does not promise a result in another. What drove this outcome was a specific record: clear liability, a serious and well-documented injury, and a carrier whose own handling of the claim created exposure beyond its policy.
Colorado Injury Law Takeaway
If you have ever wondered whether an insurance company can be made to pay more than its policy limits, the answer in Colorado is yes, under the right facts. Here is how it works.
When the at-fault driver does not carry enough insurance, your own or your employer’s underinsured motorist coverage can fill the gap. UIM is first-party coverage, which means you are making a claim under a policy that is supposed to protect you. With that protection comes a legal duty: the carrier must handle your claim reasonably.
Colorado backs that duty with statute. Under C.R.S. section 10-3-1115, an insurer may not unreasonably delay or deny payment of benefits owed to a first-party claimant. When it does, C.R.S. section 10-3-1116 lets the claimant recover two times the covered benefit, plus reasonable attorney fees and court costs. On top of the statute, Colorado common law recognizes a separate claim for bad faith breach of an insurance contract. Those remedies are why a $1,000,000 policy can turn into a larger payment. The extra exposure is the price of the carrier’s own unreasonable conduct.
A few warning signs that a carrier may be crossing the line: it ignores your letters and calls, it refuses to evaluate or review your documents, it offers nothing on a claim with real injuries, or it drags out the process with no legitimate reason.
One practical note: in Colorado, the deadline to file a lawsuit for injuries from a motor vehicle accident is generally three years from the date of the crash (C.R.S. section 13-80-101(1)(n)). Waiting can cost you the claim entirely.
Frequently Asked Questions
Sometimes. The policy limit caps what the carrier owes on the contract itself, but if the carrier unreasonably delays or denies a valid claim, Colorado law (C.R.S. sections 10-3-1115 and 10-3-1116) and common-law bad faith can expose it to money beyond the limit. That is what happened in this case.
Often yes. UIM coverage may exist on your employer’s policy, on the vehicle you were driving, or on your own auto policy, and more than one policy can apply. A lawyer can identify every layer of coverage available to you.
Keep a dated record of every call, letter, and email, and the times the company failed to respond. That paper trail can become powerful evidence of bad faith. Then talk to a lawyer, because an insurer that ignores a represented client is often more careful once it knows it is being watched.
It is an insurer’s unreasonable handling of a claim it owes, including unreasonable delay, denial, or refusal to evaluate. It is separate from a simple disagreement over value. Bad faith is about unreasonable conduct, and Colorado law provides specific remedies for it.
Talk to a Colorado Injury Lawyer
If you were seriously injured in a crash near Fort Lupton or anywhere in Weld County, and an insurance company is delaying, denying, or ignoring your claim, Rampart Injury Lawyers can help. We handle car accident and underinsured motorist claims across Colorado, and we know how to make a stonewalling carrier answer. Call (303) 766-8766 for a free, confidential consultation. There is no attorney fee unless we obtain a recovery for you.
Disclaimers
FLAG: The four disclaimers below are standard Colorado-RPC-driven drafts. The skill’s disclaimers.md is not in this environment. Replace this block with the firm’s approved templates before publishing.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different, and the result described here depends on its specific facts. Describing this result is not a promise or prediction about any other case.
This page is attorney advertising. Rampart Injury Lawyers is a trade name of Travis Legal Offices, LLC. Todd A. Travis is the attorney responsible for the content of this page.
The information on this page is general and for educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice about your own situation, speak with a licensed Colorado attorney.
Contacting Rampart Injury Lawyers or requesting a consultation does not create an attorney-client relationship, and information you send before we agree to represent you may not be treated as confidential. Consultations are free. In a contingent-fee matter, you may be responsible for case costs and expenses; ask us to explain our fee and cost terms before you hire us.
