Roderick v. City of Colorado Springs, 193 Colo. 104, 563 P.2d 3 (1977); Moses v. Moses, 180 Colo. 397, 505 P.2d 1302 (1973). All doubts regarding the evidence must be resolved against the moving party, Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972); Primrock v. Hamilton, 168 Colo. 524, 452 P.2d 375 (1969), and the party against whom the motion is made is entitled to all favorable inferences that reasonably may be drawn from the evidence, O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). The standard to be applied by the trial court on a motion for summary judgment is substantially similar to the standard to be applied to determine a motion for directed verdict.

§ 13-51-113. See O'Herron v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 Colo. 164, 171, 397 P.2d 227, 230 (1964). Thus, factual issues may be decided in declaratory actions pursuant to the mechanism outlined by the CUDJL.

1981). An issue of fact may arise from the existence of conflicting permissible inferences from evidence accepted as true. O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). Furthermore, we stated in O'Herron that "where the undisputed evidence permits of offsetting inferences, the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made `is entitled to all favorable inferences which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence and if when so viewed reasonable men might reach different conclusions the motion should be denied.'"

In reversing, the Colorado Court of Appeals wrote as follows: "An issue of fact may arise from countervailing inferences which are permissible from evidence accepted as true. O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227. Where undisputed evidence permits conflicting inferences, the party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made is entitled to all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the evidence; and if, when so viewed, reasonable men might reach different conclusions, the motion should be denied. O'Herron v. State Farm, supra.

Therefore, if differing factual inferences may be drawn from those facts, summary judgment cannot be granted. O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964); Sewell v. Public Service Co., 832 P.2d 994 (Colo.App. 1991). Further, because a court rendering summary judgment does not engage in fact finding, our review of the court's ruling is de novo.

Neely cites several Colorado cases in which insurance companies and insured persons have invoked the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Law to determine whether coverage existed or to ascertain the liability limits of an insurance policy. See, e.g., American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bowser, 779 P.2d 1376 (Colo.App. 1989) (involving a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurance company after the insured made a claim under the policy, and the insurance company asserted it was not liable to pay for fire damage when there was proof of arson by the insured); O'Herron v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (Colo. 1964) (involving a declaratory judgment action filed against the plaintiff by the defendant's insurance company, after the plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the defendant and the insurance company denied liability). However, these cases arose only after the insured has made a demand on the insurance company to defend a lawsuit or to pay a claim or judgment.

As a preliminary matter, we note that Allstate has the right to seek a judicial determination of its obligations under Troelstrup's homeowner's insurance policy. It is beyond dispute that an insurance company has the right to seek a declaration of its rights and duties under a policy of insurance. §§ 13-51-106, -107, 6 C.R.S. (1973); O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). The granting of declaratory relief is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court and is not precluded even when there is another adequate remedy.

Not only is the party against whom the judgment might otherwise be entered entitled to the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the facts, but, with the case in this particular evidentiary posture, it cannot be definitively determined that the party to be favored by the court's putative action is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.S.C. Industries, Inc., 426 U.S. 438; Gleason v. Guzman, 623 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1981); O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964); Roderick v. City of Colorado Springs, 193 Colo. 104, 563 P.2d 3 (1977). Generally, a party challenging the constitutionality of the statute or ordinance must show that the enactment will have an adverse effect on its present or imminent conduct.

Under well-established principles of law governing disposition of summary judgment motions, reliance on unverified allegations in pleadings is wholly insufficient. E.g., Ginter v. Palmer Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978); O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). Accordingly, the plaintiffs may not pursue their claims on the theory of knowing concealment. Mishek, 200 Colo. 514, 616 P.2d 135.

Moreover, a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is made must receive the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn from the undisputed facts. O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). With the foregoing principles to guide us, we review the relevant factual record, which consists of various affidavits and depositions, to assess the correctness of the award of summary judgment in favor of Big O.