Christmas v. Cooley

57 Citing cases

  1. BA Mortgage Co. v. Unisal Development, Inc.

    469 F. Supp. 1258 (D. Colo. 1979)   Cited 7 times
    Harmonizing two contemporary agreements, the first of which made provision for effective incorporation by reference of the second

    Plaintiff next argues that a contract should be construed to favor the party it was designed to protect, and I agree that this is the law. Christmas v. Cooley, (1965) 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333. With unfailing aim, plaintiff says the provision was intended to protect plaintiff, but the evidence just as easily supports the opposite conclusion. The evidence established to my satisfaction that the party to be protected was the takeout lender who was required to keep a couple of million dollars on hand for use by the borrower if he decided to make claim for the takeout loan. [Remember, there was no requirement that the borrower had to use Unisal's money if a better loan could be located elsewhere.] I think that one party to be protected was the takeout lender, and, at the very worst, it can't be said that only the borrower had any chips in the game.

  2. Glencove Holdings v. Bloom (In re Bloom)

    622 B.R. 366 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2020)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that in light of Bermel, the “intentional tort claims . . . are simply ‘outside the scope' of the economic loss rule.”

    "To ascertain whether certain provisions of an agreement are ambiguous, the language used must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed and by reference to all the parts and provisions of the agreement and the nature of the transaction which forms its subject matter." Christmas v. Cooley , 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333, 335 (1965). But, even if ambiguous, where a doubt exists as to the proper construction of a given clause, "a contract is construed most strongly against the drafter."

  3. Cheyenne Mountain School v. Thompson

    861 P.2d 711 (Colo. 1993)   Cited 69 times
    Finding an employment contract's silence as to whether the employee would be compensated for unused vacation time was ambiguous because it was a matter naturally within the scope of the contract

    To ascertain whether certain provisions of a contract are ambiguous, "the language used therein must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed and by reference to all the parts and provisions of the agreement and the nature of the transaction which forms its subject matter." Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 301, 406 P.2d 333, 335 (1965). A document is ambiguous "when it is reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning."

  4. Heller v. Fire Ins. Exchange

    800 P.2d 1006 (Colo. 1990)   Cited 47 times
    Finding that surface water that was concentrated and redirected due to artificial channel was no longer surface water

    To ascertain whether certain provisions of an agreement are ambiguous, the language used must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain, popular, and generally accepted meaning of the words employed and with reference to all provisions of the document. See Florom v. Elliott Mfg., 867 F.2d 570, 575 (10th Cir. 1989); Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 301, 406 P.2d 333, 336 (1965); Ray L. Atchison Constr. Co. v. Sossaman, 717 P.2d 988, 989 (Colo.App. 1985). Surface water is water from melted snow, falling rain, or rising springs, lying or flowing naturally on the earth's surface, not gathering into or forming any more definite body of water than a mere bog, swamp, slough, or marsh, and lost by percolation, evaporation or natural drainage.

  5. Stegall v. Little Johnson Associates, Ltd.

    996 F.2d 1043 (10th Cir. 1993)   Cited 25 times
    Applying Colorado law

    The nature of the transaction which forms the contract subject matter must also be considered." In re Marriage of Thompson, 802 P.2d 1189, 1190 (Colo.Ct.App. 1990); accord Radiology ProfessionalCorp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 195 Colo. 253, 577 P.2d 748 (1978); Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333, 335 (1965). We agree with the district court that under this standard the term "master drainage plan" is ambiguous.

  6. Seaboard Fire Marine Insurance Co. v. Gibbs

    392 F.2d 793 (4th Cir. 1968)   Cited 13 times
    In Seaboard Fire Marine Insurance Co. v. Gibbs (4th Cir. 1968), 392 F.2d 793, the court, interpreting South Carolina law, decided that a truck with six wheels was within the definition of a four-wheel-land-motor vehicle, but also noted that the truck could have been used with four wheels.

    It is generally recognized in contract cases that any ambiguity or provision of doubtful meaning is construed against the party who wrote the contract. Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965); Aleksich v. Mutual Benefit Health Accident Ass'n, 118 Mont. 223, 164 P.2d 372 (1945); Lilley-Ames Co. v. United States, 293 F.2d 630, 632, 154 Ct.Cl. 544, 548 (1961). This frequently arises in insurance policies, which have been the basis of a great deal of litigation.

  7. Integrity Med. Mgmt., LLC v. Surgical Ctr. at Premier, LLC

    234 F. Supp. 3d 1085 (D. Colo. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Even if Premier were able to squeeze ambiguity out of these minutes, Colorado law would require this Court to construe the contract amendment against Premier as the party who drafted it. SeeChristmas v. Cooley , 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333, 336 (1965). With IMM's entitlement to its 2014 payments firmly established, the question arises of what to do about IMM's 2015 payments.

  8. Summit Bank & Trust v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co.

    71 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (D. Colo. 2014)   Cited 2 times
    Explaining that whether an insured failed to cooperate is a question of fact

    To ascertain whether a certain provision is ambiguous, “the instrument's language must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed, and reference must be made to all the provisions of the agreement.” Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 195 Colo. 253, 256, 577 P.2d 748, 750 (1978) (citingChristmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965) ). While exclusionary clauses exempting the insurer from providing coverage in certain circumstances must be written in clear and specific language and construed in favor of coverage, a court may not add, delete, or rewrite terms to extend coverage. McGowan v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 100 P.3d 521, 523 (Colo.App.2004).

  9. Summit Bank & Trust, Corp. v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-02395-JLK (D. Colo. Jul. 15, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    To ascertain whether a certain provision is ambiguous, "the instrument's language must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed, and reference must be made to all the provisions of the agreement." Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 195 Colo. 253, 256, 577 P.2d 748, 750 (1978)(citing Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965)). While exclusionary clauses exempting the insurer from providing coverage in certain circumstances must be written in clear and specific language and construed in favor of coverage, a court may not add, delete, or rewrite terms to extend coverage.

  10. Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Insurance

    989 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (D. Colo. 2013)   Cited 14 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Interpreting contractual language in a lay manner consistent with what would be understood by a person of ordinary intelligence and avoiding strained constructions

    To ascertain whether a certain provision is ambiguous, “the instrument's language must be examined and construed in harmony with the plain and generally accepted meaning of the words employed, and reference must be made to all the provisions of the agreement.” Radiology Professional Corp. v. Trinidad Area Health Ass'n, 195 Colo. 253, 256, 577 P.2d 748, 750 (1978) (citing Christmas v. Cooley, 158 Colo. 297, 406 P.2d 333 (1965)). Not only should strained constructions be avoided in favor of common constructions, but technical and legal definitions should also be avoided.