Colin C. Campbell

Colin C. Campbell

Tel:   303.831.5990
Fax:  303.832.7144
Direct Dial: 303.645.4413

Colin Campbell was born and raised in Huntington, West Virginia. Colin moved to Colorado to attend law school. For the past 30 years, he has concentrated his practice in insurance defense litigation. Colin served as a board member of the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association, helping formulate and organize its initial Trial Academy.

He has presented seminars to claims associations and other trade groups on matters involving insurance coverage and other substantive issues of insurance defense law and strategy. Colin has also assisted a national insurer in updating and amending its commercial general liability coverage policy forms.

Colin has participated in over 100 jury trials to verdict and has an extensive appellate practice as well, experiencing a better than 75% success rate in numerous appellate decisions. Colin has extensive experience in litigating most areas of insurance defense law including coverage disputes, bad faith, product liability, construction defect, auto accidents and general liability.

State of Colorado, 1982
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
United States District Court, District of Colorado

Princeton University, BA, 1979
University of Denver College of Law, J.D., 1982

Professional Affiliations
Denver Bar Association
Colorado Bar Association
Colorado Defense Lawyers Association


Trial: Buck v Salzman, El Paso District Court, February 2014

Our client, Mr. Salzman caused an accident while having an epileptic seizure. He had a 20 year history of occasional seizures, and had caused another accident during a seizure several years before. His treating neurologist had cleared him to drive, but his prior neurologist, of the same neurologic practice group, testified at trial that he should not have been driving. Plaintiff’s car was flipped over onto its roof by impact. Plaintiff was a young woman in her mid twenties, complaining of persistent low back pain due to nonsurgical bulging disc. Pre- trial demand of $249,000, and had offered $40,000 (with indication to mediator during mediation of willingness to go to $60,000). The jury found in plaintiff’s favor, finding that Salzman assumed the risk of liability by continuing to drive after first seizure-caused auto accident. The jury awarded $70,000 in damages.

Trial: Samuels v Potter, Pitkin County District Court, December 2015

Bifurcated liability trial held December 7 through 18, 2015. Lawsuit was brought by 9 passengers of a Roaring Fork Transportation Authority bus which lost control and overturned after swerving to avoid a slow moving farm tractor travelling at dusk on highway 82 near Carbondale. The three defendants at trial were the bus driver, the operator of the tractor, and our client, who owned the tractor and had loaned it to his friend who was driving the tractor down the highway. The passengers alleged our client to have been negligent in failing to detect that the slow moving vehicle emblem had become displaced and was missing at the time he loaned out the tractor. The jury allocated 50% liability to the bus driver, 45% liability to the operator of the tractor, and 5% to our client.

Trial: Miller v American Family Mutual Insurance Company, U.S. Dist. Ct., Colorado, May 2015

Plaintiffs, whose home sustained fire, smoke and water damage in the Waldo Canyon fire, sued their insurer for breach of contract as well as for common law and statutory bad faith, claiming that their insurer failed to properly adjust their claim or adequately compensate them for their damages. Plaintiffs sought over $300,000 in collective damages and claimed statutory penalties.  The jury reached a defense verdict in favor of our client insurer on all claims asserted.

Court of Appeals: Laughman v. Girtakovskis, October 2015

The Plaintiff sued to recover for personal injuries sustained during a martial arts sparring match, which injury occurred when our client unintentionally struck the Plaintiff in the face. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in our client’s favor, upon grounds that a participant in a physical sporting event does not owe a duty of reasonable care to protect other participants from physical harm. This is the first reported Colorado appellate decision to clarify that one participant in a sporting event cannot sue another for negligence.

Trial: Johnson v Offen Petroleum, Adams County District, January 2016

Plaintiffs sued the defendant petroleum company to recover for noneconomic damages and loss of property value following an oil tanker spill which contaminated their property. Admitted liability. Plaintiffs sought recovery of more than $200,000 in damages. Our firm defended the petroleum company. The jury awarded $56,000.

Court of Appeals: Martinez v American Family Mutual Ins. Co., March 2016

Homeowner sued insurer for benefits to pay for flood damage under homeowners’ policy following severe storm in which water overflowed through basement window wells. Plaintiff alleged water fell from roof into window wells, and thus did not constitute flood water. Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary judgment to our client insurer upon grounds that the loss was excluded as flood water.

Trial: Espinosa v American Family Mutual Ins. Co., Arapahoe County District Court, May 2016

Plaintiff sued client insurer for uninsured motorist benefits, and for common law and statutory bad faith with regard to head injuries sustained in an auto accident. The jury found in our client’s favor on the bad faith claims, by finding that the insurer’s handling of the claim had been reasonable. The jury further found that the plaintiff had breached the policy’s cooperation clause with regard to our client’s investigation of the claim. The breach of the cooperation clause nullified any obligation to pay further benefits, resulting in judgment for our client on the contractual claim as well.

Colorado Supreme Court: Hansen v American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 375 P.2d 115 (Colo. 2016) June 2016

The Colorado Supreme Court reversed a judgment entered against our client by concluding that information contained in a lienholder statement issued by an insurance agent is not part of the insurance contract, and thus cannot create an ambiguity with regard to the identity of the named insured.

Trial: Conklin v Metro Mix, LLC, Denver District Court, August 2016

Plaintiff sued our client for personal injuries which she claims to have sustained when a cement chute flew off of client’s cement mixing truck travelling down the highway and struck the windshield of Plaintiff’s car. Admitted liability. Plaintiff claimed $135,000 in past medical expenses, $300,000 plus in future medical expenses and $190,000 in earnings loss, and asked for over $2,000,000 in trial. The jury awarded total damages of $175,000.

Trial: Cronan v American Family Ins. Co., Arapahoe County District Court, October 2016

Plaintiff sought property benefits under his homeowner’s policy for damages caused by a tree which struck the house after it was struck by lightning. The parties disputed whether the tree fall or the lightning strike compromised the structural integrity of the home. Plaintiff sought recovery of $278,000 in contract benefits at trial. The jury awarded $34,802 in contract benefits, of which $11,000 had been unreasonably delayed in payment.

Court of Appeals: Przekurat v Davis, December 2016

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a single car accident while being driven home from a keg party by an intoxicated friend. The keg party had been hosted by four roommates at their rental home in Boulder. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment entered in favor of our client by finding that Colorado social host dram shop liability requires proof that the defendant knew the person drinking on the defendant’s premises was underage.

Trial: Chukkapalli v American Family Mutual Ins. Co., Arapahoe County District Court, June 2017.

Plaintiff sued client for common law and statutory bad faith for denying coverage and refusing to defend Plaintiff against a claim by a university for damage to its lab equipment caused when the plaintiff activated a chemical shower while passing through a class room building during the middle of the night. The coverage question centered on whether the plaintiff’s actions were excluded from coverage by operation of the intentional injury exclusion. The jury reached a verdict in favor of our client on the claims for bad faith by finding that our client’s coverage decision had been reasonable.

Trial: Gendleman Group Partnership v American Family Ins. Co., Pitkin County District Court, November 2017

Plaintiff brought suit against his homeowners insurer for property damage benefits for the cost to repair water damage to his Aspen condominium. Plaintiff claimed $112,000 in repair costs, which included the cost to repair the leaky roof deck and waterproof membrane beneath the concrete deck. The insurer denied coverage due to applicable policy exclusions, including wear and tear and repeated or continuous leaking, based upon its perception that the leaks in the roof deck pre-existed the water damage event. At trial, Plaintiff pursued not only a contract claim for payment of $112,000 in repair benefits, but also recovery of roughly $500,000 in attorney fees and costs as statutory penalties for alleged unreasonable denial of his claim. The jury returned a verdict for our client on the contract claim, and the court thereafter entered judgment for our client on all claims for relief.