In the insurance case, the justices will resolve a split between Court of Appeals panels over how much time plaintiffs have to sue insurers under a 2019 law requiring companies to disclose relevant auto policies within 30 days of a request. Insurers that withhold information beyond that deadline face a $100-per-day penalty.

The dispute stems from a December 2020 crash involving Joshua and Wendy Weatherill. The following month, their attorney asked State Farm for the at-fault driver's policy details. State Farm disclosed one policy eight days later but did not respond to a follow-up inquiry. The Weatherills sued the driver in 2021 and only in October 2022 learned of a second policy with much higher limits. They then sued State Farm, arguing they had requested all known policies, including excess or umbrella coverage, and had no reason to suspect information was being withheld.

State Farm moved to dismiss, citing a one-year statute of limitations for penalties. Denver District Court Judge Jill D. Dorancy agreed, though she acknowledged the Weatherills were unaware of the second policy. A three-judge appellate panel later broke with a prior ruling, Reynolds v. Great Northern Insurance Company, which had applied the one-year window. Judge Elizabeth L. Harris wrote that the $100-per-day consequence did not bear the hallmarks of a penalty because it is not a fine imposed by the state and does not involve a determination of overpayment or delinquency. The panel applied the default two-year statute of limitations, and the Weatherills' case proceeded.

State Farm asked the Supreme Court to resolve what its attorneys called "hopeless conflict" among appellate opinions regarding the type of liability imposed on insurers, the applicable statute of limitations, and when a claim accrues. The Weatherills responded that if the court took the case, it should affirm their panel's reasoning and reject Reynolds. The case is State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Weatherill et al.

In the second case, the justices recently intervened in an ongoing criminal matter to decide whether community parole officers are covered by the state law requiring peace officers to wear and activate body-worn cameras. The case, People v. Mobley, arises from an April 2025 home visit in Colorado Springs, where eight parole officers arrived to inspect the residence of Rodney Mobley, who was on parole and suspected of possessing a firearm.

After Mobley did not answer their knocks, the officers broke down the door and found him in the shower. They handcuffed him and read him his Miranda rights. Mobley acknowledged a pill bottle containing fentanyl was in his truck. Officers inside the home found a loaded gun and additional narcotics. El Paso County prosecutors charged him with illegal drug and weapons possession.

The defense moved to suppress the evidence, arguing in part that parole officers must notify local law enforcement of their operations and that state law requires peace officers to wear and activate body cameras. District Court Judge Hilary Gurney agreed that the evidence was unlawfully obtained. She acknowledged that a non-precedential Court of Appeals decision earlier this year concluded parole officers, as employees of the Colorado Department of Corrections, were exempt from the camera requirement because the department is not a "political subdivision of the state." But Gurney pointed to other provisions of Colorado law that include parole officers in the definition of peace officer, including one requiring body cameras when an officer makes a warrantless entry into a dwelling whose occupants are unaware law enforcement is present.

"Warrantless entry into a dwelling when occupants are unaware that law enforcement is present and making entry creates a stressful and chaotic situation for all involved," Gurney wrote in a Sept. 15 order. "For these reasons, the General Assembly clearly intended to expand the body-worn camera usage … to include all peace officers and require the use of body-worn cameras in these situations."

Because no video footage existed, Gurney applied the law's consequence of presuming officers committed misconduct. Finding insufficient evidence to rebut that presumption, she barred the evidence from the home visit. She also determined the officers failed to comply with the notification requirement.

The prosecution appealed immediately, arguing that community parole officers are not employees of a political subdivision and that the statute requires local law enforcement agencies—not every entity employing peace officers—to provide cameras. The prosecution also noted that Mobley's parole officer briefly testified she contacted dispatch before the visit, which arguably satisfied the notification requirement. The Supreme Court has directed Mobley to explain why it should not reverse Gurney's order.

At least three of the court's seven members must agree to hear a case on appeal, but at least four votes are required to review a case outside the normal appellate process. The decisions could affect how quickly injured motorists can pursue penalties against insurers and whether parole officers face the same camera accountability as other law enforcement in Colorado.