Hawks v. Agri Sales, Inc, 00CA2045 (November 23, 2001): Plaintiff, a Kansas resident, was injured in Colorado in late August 1997 while working on defendant's premises for his Kansas employer. He received workers' compensation benefits from his employer under Kansas workers' compensation laws. In early August 1999, plaintiff filed a tort action against defendant in Colorado. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment based upon a Kansas statute which states that failure of an injured worker to bring an action against a third party tortfeasor within one year from the date of injury operates as an assignment of the cause of action to the employer.
The court of appeals reversed the trial court and reinstated plaintiff's complaint. The court of appeals held that the trial court erred in applying Kansas law because Colorado had the "most significant relationship" to the claim against defendant. Under Colorado law, a plaintiff can bring a claim against a third party for damages in excess of workers' compensation benefits, as long as the action is brought within two years.

Brucha v. Cruise America, Inc., 01CA57 (December 6, 2001): Plaintiff rented a motor home and four motorcycles from defendant, a self-insured corporation in the business of renting vehicles. Plaintiff also obtained insurance coverage with defendant. Plaintiff was listed as an "authorized driver" in the insurance and rental contract. While riding one of the rented motorcycles, plaintiff was injured in an auto-motorcycle accident. Defendant denied liability on plaintiff's claim for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under the contract.
Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract and bad faith breach of contract, and asserted claims under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (No-Fault Act). The trial court entered summary judgment for defendant on the basis that plaintiff was not the "named insured" under the contract. The court of appeals reversed, holding that plaintiff, as the "authorized driver," was the "named insured" on the contract covering the rented motor home and therefore was entitled to PIP coverage for the motorcycle accident. The insurance and rental contract was an insurance contract for purposes of the No-Fault Act. Plaintiff, as an authorized driver of the motor home and motorcycles, was the named insured under his insurance and rental contract with defendant.