Ind. Comm. v. Peterson

5 Citing cases

  1. Triad Painting Company v. Blair

    812 P.2d 638 (Colo. 1991)   Cited 78 times

    We have recognized the defense that an injury was "intentionally self-inflicted" in the situation of suicide. See, e.g., Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Peterson, 151 Colo. 289, 290-91; 377 P.2d 542, 544-45 (1962); London Lancashire, 135 Colo. at 374, 311 P.2d at 707. Suicide is the intended result of a self-inflicted act.

  2. Wellinger Family Trust 1998 v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Sep. 24, 2013)

    141 F.3d at 1041; see, e.g., Indust. Comm'n of Colo. v. Peterson, 377 P.2d 542, 545 (Colo. 1963) (explaining that the presumption against suicide can be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary). Plaintiffs' assertion that Mr. Wellinger was not experiencing suicidal ideation is contradicted by substantial evidence, including: the self-inflicted gunshot wound; the coroner's report; and the evidence the coroner relied upon (see Doc. # 97, filed under seal).

  3. Lockwood v. Travelers Ins. Co.

    179 Colo. 103 (Colo. 1972)   Cited 12 times

    [5] When the "accident-suicide" dichotomy is placed in issue as it was here by the pleadings and the rebuttable presumption, the plaintiff has the burden of proving accident to the exclusion of suicide by a preponderance of the evidence. See 46 C.J.S. Insurance ยง 1319(4)(b); Industrial Comm. v. Peterson, 151 Colo. 289, 377 P.2d 542; American Ins. Co. v. Naylor, 101 Colo. 34, 70 P.2d 349. Therefore, the court's Instruction No. 2 incorrectly stated the law to be applied in this case by telling the jury that the defendant had to prove suicide by a preponderance of the evidence.

  4. Jasinski v. Ginley-Soper

    458 P.2d 754 (Colo. 1969)   Cited 4 times

    Under the state of the evidence, where reasonable men fairly considering it might honestly arrive at different conclusions, the findings of the Commission in resolution thereof are binding upon this court. Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Peterson, 151 Colo. 289, 377 P.2d 542; Claimants of Bennett v. Durango FurnitureMart, 136 Colo. 529, 319 P.2d 494; Hamilton v. Industrial Commission, 132 Colo. 408, 289 P.2d 639 Industrial Commission v. Day, 107 Colo. 332, 111 P.2d 1061. The judgment is affirmed.

  5. In re Leon, W.C. No

    W.C. No. 4-438-030 (Colo. Ind. App. May. 13, 2002)

    The question of whether the claimant intentionally injured himself, or did so as a result of a grossly negligent or reckless act, was one of fact for determination by the ALJ. See Industrial Commission v. Peterson, 151 Colo. 289, 377 P.2d 542 (1962) (where respondents presented some evidence to overcome presumption against suicide, the question of whether the decedent intentionally killed himself or was the victim of an accident was one of fact for determination by the ALJ). Because the issue is factual in nature, we must uphold the ALJ's determination if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Section 8-43-301(8), C.R.S. 2001. This standard of review requires us to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party, and defer to the ALJ's resolution of conflicts in the evidence and credibility determinations.