26 CO 55, 23SC932 City of Grand Junction v. Nicola, John

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

<!-- PageHeader="The opinion summaries are not part of the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion. They have been prepared solely for the reader's convenience. As such, they may not be cited or relied upon. If there is any discrepancy between the language in the summary and the opinion, the language in the opinion controls." -->

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE

June 29, 2026

2026 CO 55

No. 23SC932, City of Grand Junction v. Nicola-Survival Claim - Statute of
Limitations-Person Under Disability - Legal Representative.

Section 13-81-103(1)(b), C.R.S. (2025) ("subsection (1)(b)"), provides that if a
person dies while under disability and "before the expiration of the period of
limitation in [section 13-81-103(1)(a) ("subsection (1)(a)")]," then any survival
claim must be brought within one year after the date of the person's death.
§ 13-81-103(1)(b). The supreme court holds that subsection (1)(b) applies
irrespective of whether a legal representative has been appointed for a person
under disability.

If the person under disability had no legal representative appointed, then
the phrase "the expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]" simply
refers to the applicable statute of limitations. Id. But if the person under disability
had a legal representative appointed, then "the expiration of the period of
limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]" refers to the expiration of the applicable statute of

<!-- PageBreak -->

limitations or two years after the appointment of the legal representative,
whichever is later. Id.

The supreme court concludes that subsection (1)(b) applies to John Nicola's
survival claims and renders them untimely. The supreme court also concludes
that the City of Grand Junction and Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a
Xcel Energy, are entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees under
section 13-17-201, C.R.S (2025). Accordingly, the supreme court reverses the
judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, including reinstatement of the district court's
judgment dismissing Nicola's complaint and determination of appropriate
attorney fees.

<!-- PageBreak -->

# The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue . Denver, Colorado 80203

2026 CO 55

Supreme Court Case No. 23SC932
Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Case No. 22CA656

Petitioners:
City of Grand Junction and Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel
Energy,
V.

Respondent:
John Nicola, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of
Danielle Nicola.

Judgment Reversed

en banc

June 29, 2026

Attorneys for Petitioner City of Grand Junction:
The Law Office of Josh W. Mack, PLLC
Joshua W. Mack
Durango, Colorado

Attorneys for Petitioner Public Service Company of Colorado d/b/a Xcel

Energy:

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

Franz Hardy

Stephanie S. Brizel

Denver, Colorado

<!-- PageBreak -->

Attorneys for Respondent:
Killian, Davis, Richter & Fredenburg, PC
J. Keith Killian
Damon Davis
Grand Junction, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association:
Wahlberg, Woodruff, Nimmo & Sloane LLP
Megan K. Matthews
Karman J. Reed
Denver, Colorado

Ramos Law
Spencer B. Aitken
Centennial, Colorado

CHIEF JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which
JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE GABRIEL, JUSTICE
SAMOUR, JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER, and JUSTICE BLANCO joined.

<!-- PageBreak -->

CHIEF JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.

11 Danielle Nicola was struck by a car while crossing a street after dark. She
immediately lost consciousness and remained comatose until she passed away
nineteen days later. No conservator or guardian was appointed for her before her
death.

12 Nearly two years after Danielle's death, her father, John Nicola,1 sued the
City of Grand Junction and Public Service Company of Colorado, d/b/a Xcel
Energy, ("Defendants") in this case, bringing survival claims for negligence and
premises liability. Nicola alleged that Defendants failed to properly maintain the
streetlights and signage at the intersection near where Danielle was struck.

13 Defendants moved to dismiss Nicola's suit as untimely. As relevant here,
Defendants argued that under section 13-81-103(1)(b), C.R.S. (2025)
("subsection (1)(b)"), Nicola had one year from the date of Danielle's death to
bring the survival claims. Subsection (1)(b) provides that if a person dies while
under disability and "before the expiration of the period of limitation in
[section 13-81-103(1)(a) ("subsection (1)(a)")]," then any survival claim must be
brought within one year after the date of the person's death. § 13-81-103(1)(b).
The district court agreed with Defendants and granted their motions to dismiss.

1 For clarity, we refer to John Nicola as "Nicola" and Danielle Nicola as "Danielle"
in this opinion. We mean no disrespect to either person.

<!-- PageBreak -->

14 On appeal, a division of the court of appeals reversed, holding that
"[subsection (1)(b)] applies only when a person under a disability (1) had a legal
representative and (2) died after the expiration of the applicable statute of
limitations but less than two years after the legal representative was appointed."
Nicola v. City of Grand Junction, 2023 COA 111, 1 40, 544 P.3d 120, 129. The division
reasoned that a legal representative is required because subsection (1)(b) refers to
"the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," and in turn, subsection (1)(a)
applies when a legal representative has been appointed for the person under
disability. Id. at 11 41-43, 544 P.3d at 129 (alteration in original) (quoting
§ 13-81-103(1)(b)). Because Danielle was not appointed a legal representative, the
division concluded that the one-year statute of limitations under subsection (1)(b)
did not apply to render Nicola's claims time-barred. Id. at 1 59, 544 P.3d at 132-33.
Instead, the division applied section 13-80-112, C.R.S. (2025), the general
limitations provision applicable to survival actions. Nicola, 11 59-60, 544 P.3d at
132-33. The division reasoned that under this provision, Nicola's claims were
timely because, as Danielle's personal representative, Nicola had the longer of
either the applicable statute of limitations (running from the date her disability
was removed by her death) or one year from the date of her death to bring the
survival action. Id. at [ 60, 544 P.3d at 133.

<!-- PageBreak -->

15 We granted Defendants' petitions for certiorari review and now reverse the
judgment of the court of appeals.2 We hold that subsection (1)(b) applies
irrespective of whether a legal representative has been appointed for the person
under disability. We conclude that the phrase "the expiration of the period of
limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," refers to the expiration of the applicable statute
of limitations, or, if a legal representative was appointed, before the expiration of
any additional time to which the legal representative would be entitled under
subsection (1)(a) to bring the claim. § 13-81-103(1)(a)-(b); § 13-81-103(1)(c)
("subsection (1)(c)").

[6 Here, the parties do not dispute that Danielle was a person under disability
when her claims accrued. She passed away without ever regaining full

2 We granted certiorari to review the following issues:

1\. Whether, in reversing dismissal of a survival claim based on the
statute of limitations, the court of appeals erred in concluding that
section 13-81-103(1)(b), C.R.S. (2023), applies only when a person
under a disability (1) had a legal representative and (2) died after
the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations but less than
two years after the legal representative was appointed and thereby
instead applying section 13-80-112, C.R.S. (2023).

2\. Whether the court of appeals erred by concluding that the statute
of limitations for a personal representative to file a survival action
under section 13-80-112, C.R.S. (2023), is two years from the date
of death rather than two years from the date of the incident as
required under sections 13-20-101(2) and 13-80-108(1), C.R.S.
(2023).

<!-- PageBreak -->

consciousness and thus died before her disability terminated. And her death
occurred only nineteen days after she was struck by the car, well before the
expiration of any applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, subsection (1)(b)
applies, and Nicola had one year from the date of Danielle's death to bring the
survival claims. Because Nicola brought the claims almost two years after
Danielle's death, they are untimely and barred by subsection (1)(b).3

17 Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. We remand
the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including
reinstatement of the district court's judgment dismissing Nicola's complaint and
determination of appropriate attorney fees under section 13-17-201, C.R.S (2025).

## I. Facts and Procedural History

18 On the evening of November 23, 2018, Danielle was struck by a car as she
was crossing a street in Grand Junction, Colorado. A law enforcement officer
responding to the scene noticed and photographed a nonworking streetlamp at
the intersection near the accident. Danielle was transported to a hospital with life-
threatening injuries, including severe brain trauma. She never regained full
consciousness, and on December 12, 2018, she died from her injuries. Five months

3 Because we conclude that the claim was untimely under subsection (1)(b), we do
not reach the second issue presented.

<!-- PageBreak -->

later, Nicola sued the driver who hit Danielle, and those parties settled Nicola's
wrongful death claims.

19 On December 11, 2020, Nicola filed a separate lawsuit against Defendants,
asserting survival claims for negligence and premises liability.4 Nicola alleged that
the streetlight had not been working at the intersection where Danielle was struck,
and that Defendants had breached their duties of care by failing to maintain
adequate street lighting and failing to warn of dangerous conditions on their
property.

110 Defendants moved to dismiss the survival claims as time-barred, arguing
that subsection (1)(b) requires an executor or administrator of a person who died
while under disability to bring claims within one year. Here, Defendants argued,
Nicola filed the claims almost two years after Danielle's death, which made them
untimely. The district court agreed and granted Defendants' motions to dismiss.
111 Nicola appealed, arguing that he had the entire applicable statute of
limitations period to file suit, not just one year. A division of the court of appeals

4 Nicola also asserted wrongful death claims for negligence and premises liability
against Defendants. The district court dismissed those claims as barred by the
"one civil action" rule because Nicola had previously brought-and, after
reaching a settlement, voluntarily dismissed - wrongful death claims against the
driver of the car. The division affirmed, Nicola, TT 12-26, 544 P.3d at 124-26, and
we denied Nicola's cross-petition for certiorari review on this issue. Accordingly,
the wrongful death claims are not before us.

<!-- PageBreak -->

agreed with Nicola and reversed the district court's judgment. Nicola, 11 51, 62,
544 P.3d at 131, 133.

112 After evaluating several interrelated provisions governing statutes of
limitations, the division made the following observations.

· Section 13-81-103(1) ("subsection (1)") "tolls" the statute of limitations
for persons under disability and establishes the circumstances under
which it begins running again. Nicola, 11 33-34, 544 P.3d at 127-28.

· Under subsection (1)(a), "[o]nce a legal representative is appointed, the
statute of limitations begins to run as though the disability has been
removed or terminated." Id. at | 35, 544 P.3d at 128.

· Subsection (1)(a) also "extends the period within which a legal
representative can bring a claim on behalf of the person under a
disability for an additional two years from the date of appointment." Id.

113 The division then turned to subsection (1)(b) and concluded that it "applies
only when a person under a disability (1) had a legal representative and (2) died
after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations but less than two years
after the legal representative was appointed." Id. at | 40, 544 P.3d at 129.

[14 The division arrived at this conclusion by first observing that
subsection (1)(b) applies in situations where "the person under disability" dies
before the expiration of "the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]." Id. at | 42,
544 P.3d at 129 (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
§ 13-81-103(1)(b)). Importantly, the division assumed that under subsection (1)(a),
the applicable statute of limitations runs against a person under disability as it

<!-- PageBreak -->

would against anyone else only if a legal representative has been appointed. Id. at
T 40, 544 P.3d at 129. In other words, the division reasoned that if no legal
representative has been appointed, then the applicable statute of limitations is
tolled; there is no "period of limitation" in subsection (1)(a) that runs or expires.
Id. at 1 43, 544 P.3d at 129. Thus, under the division's view, subsection (1)(b) must
be construed to apply only when a person has a legal representative.

115 Applying this construction of section 13-81-103, the division reasoned that
because Danielle was never appointed a legal representative, subsection (1)(b) did
not apply to Nicola's survival claims, and he was not required to file them within
one year of Danielle's death. Nicola, 1 59, 544 P.3d at 132-33.

116 Next, because it concluded that none of the provisions of section 13-81-103
applied to Nicola's claims, the division turned to section 13-80-112, the general
limitations provision applicable to survival actions. Nicola, 1 59, 544 P.3d at
132-33. Under section 13-80-112, the division concluded that Nicola had the
longer of the applicable statute of limitations (which the division concluded did
not begin to run until Danielle's disability was removed by her death), or one year
from the date of Danielle's death on December 12, 2018, to bring a survival action.
Nicola, 1 60, 544 P.3d at 133. Although the parties disputed whether the applicable

<!-- PageBreak -->

statute of limitations is two or three years,5 because Nicola filed the claims less
than two years after Danielle's death, the division concluded that Nicola's claims
were timely regardless of which statute of limitations applied. Id. Thus, the
division reversed the district court's judgment dismissing Nicola's survival claims
and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Id. at [ 62,
544 P.3d at 133.

117 We granted Defendants' petitions for certiorari review and now reverse.

## II. Standard of Review and Principles of Statutory Construction

118 We review questions of statutory construction de novo. Colo. Dep't of
Revenue v. Creager Mercantile Co., 2017 CO 41M, 1 16, 395 P.3d 741, 744. In
construing a statute, we aim to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent.
Jordan v. Panorama Orthopedics & Spine Ctr., PC, 2015 CO 24, 1 14, 346 P.3d 1035,
1039. To determine legislative intent, we look to the plain and ordinary meaning
of the statutory language. Id. We do not add or subtract words from the statute,
and we construe the absence of particular language as a deliberate omission

5 Defendants argued that the applicable statute of limitations was two years under
section 13-80-102(1)(h), C.R.S. (2025) (applying to all actions against "any public or
governmental entity"). Nicola, 1 60, 544 P.3d at 133. Nicola contended it was three
years under section 13-80-101(1)(n)(I), C.R.S. (2025) (applying to tort actions for
bodily injury "arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle"). Nicola, 1 60,
544 P.3d at 133.

<!-- PageBreak -->

reflecting legislative intent. Jefferson Cnty. v. Dozier, 2025 CO 36, 1 9, 570 P.3d 482,
486; Pinnacol Assurance v. Hoff, 2016 CO 53, 1 48, 375 P.3d 1214, 1223. At the same
time, we read the statutory scheme as a whole-giving consistent, harmonious,
and sensible effect to all its parts and avoiding constructions that would render
any words or phrases superfluous or lead to illogical or absurd results. Brown v.
Walker Com., Inc., 2022 CO 57, 1 15, 521 P.3d 1014, 1018.

## III. Analysis

119 As an initial matter, we note that article 80 of title 13 sets forth limitations
periods for personal actions, and includes section 13-80-112, the provision
generally applicable to survival actions. Article 81, in turn, governs limitations
periods specifically for persons under disability, including section 13-81-103, the
provision at issue here.

120 We first review the framework created by section 13-81-103, taking each
subsection in turn. We next analyze whether subsection (1)(b) requires a legal
representative to have been appointed for the person under disability, and we
conclude that it does not. We then apply subsection (1)(b) to Nicola's survival
claims and conclude that they are untimely. Finally, we conclude that Defendants
are entitled to attorney fees under section 13-17-201.

<!-- PageBreak -->

## A. Section 13-81-103

T21 Section 13-81-103 contains two overarching subsections. Subsection (1)
makes clear that the statute applies to plaintiffs who are "under disability" at the
time their cause of action accrues:

When in any of the statutes of the state of Colorado a limitation is
fixed upon the time within which a right of action, right of
redemption, or any other right may be asserted either affirmatively or
by way of defense or an action, suit, or proceeding based thereon may
be brought, commenced, maintained, or prosecuted and the true owner
of said right is a person under disability at the time such right accrues,
then: . . .

§ 13-81-103(1) (emphasis added).

[22 Subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) go on to identify specific circumstances
that modify the statute of limitations on a right of action that has accrued to a
person under disability.

123 Subsection (1)(a) applies if the person under disability is represented by a
legal representative when the right accrues or if a legal representative is appointed
after the right accrues and before the disability is terminated. § 13-81-103(1)(a).
Under this provision, the legal representative must bring a claim within the
applicable statute of limitations or within two years after their appointment,
whichever is later:

If such person under disability is represented by a legal representative
at the time the right accrues, or if a legal representative is appointed
for such person under disability at any time after the right accrues
and prior to the termination of such disability, the applicable statute

<!-- PageBreak -->

of limitations shall run against such person under disability in the
same manner, for the same period, and with the same effect as it runs
against persons not under disability. Such legal representative, or
[their] successor in trust, in any event shall be allowed not less than
two years after [their] appointment within which to take action on
behalf of such person under disability, even though the two-year
period expires after the expiration of the period fixed by the
applicable statute of limitations.

Id.

124 In contrast, subsection (1)(c) applies only if a person under disability does
not have a legal representative. § 13-81-103(1)(c). If the disability is terminated
"before the expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," then the
person formerly under disability must bring a claim within the remaining
applicable statute of limitations or two years after the removal of their disability,
whichever is later:

If the disability of any person is terminated before the expiration of
the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)] and no legal
representative has been appointed for him, such person shall be
allowed to take action within the period fixed by the applicable
statute of limitations or within two years after the removal of the
disability, whichever period expires later.

Id.

125 Unlike subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c), subsection (1)(b) makes no mention of a
legal representative. See § 13-81-103(1)(b). It simply provides that if a person
under disability dies both before their disability is terminated and "before the

<!-- PageBreak -->

expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," then an executor or
administrator must bring a claim within one year of the person's death:

If the person under disability dies before the termination of [their]
disability and before the expiration of the period of limitation in
[subsection (1)(a)] and the right is one which survives to the executor
or administrator of a decedent, such executor or administrator shall
take action within one year after the death of such person under
disability[.]

Id.

T26
Finally, section 13-81-103(2) ("subsection (2)") prohibits extending the
statutes of limitations in subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) beyond what those
subsections expressly provide:

After the expiration of the period fixed in [subsection (1)(a), (1)(b), or
(1)(c)], neither the person under disability, nor [their] legal
representative, nor anyone for him shall be permitted or allowed to
take action based on any such right.

## B. Subsection (1)(b)

127 With this overview of section 13-81-103 in mind, we now home in on
subsection (1)(b). In contrast to subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c), subsection (1)(b) does
not require, or even mention, a legal representative. See § 13-81-103(1)(b). We
view that silence "not as an oversight, but as a deliberate omission reflecting
legislative intent." Pinnacol Assurance, 1 48, 375 P.3d at 1223. Accordingly, we
construe the absence of any reference to a legal representative in subsection (1)(b)

<!-- PageBreak -->

to mean that the provision applies when its conditions are met, irrespective of
whether a person under disability has a legal representative.

128 Nicola argues that the reference in subsection (1)(b) to "the person under
disability" refers to the person who falls under subsection (1)(a). § 13-81-103(1)(b)
(emphasis added). He further contends that subsection (1)(b) incorporates
subsection (1)(a)'s legal representative requirement because subsection (1)(b)
references "the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," and subsection (1)(a)
applies only when the person under disability has a legal representative.
§ 13-81-103(1)(a)-(b). The division reached the same conclusions. Nicola,
TT 42-43, 544 P.3d at 129.

129 It is true that the definite article "the" particularizes the subject it precedes.
City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784, 787 (Colo. 1988). But "the person under
disability" to which subsection (1)(b) refers is not the person in
subsection (1)(a)-it is the person under disability in subsection (1)-the basic
condition triggering application of section 13-81-103. § 13-81-103(1)(b) (emphasis
added) (requiring "a person under disability at the time [their] right accrues").

130 Subsection (2) likewise invokes the phrase " the person under disability" and
does so with reference to all three paragraphs of subsection (1). § 13-81-103(2)
(emphasis added) ("After the expiration of the period fixed in [subsection (1)(a),
(1)(b), or (1)(c)], neither the person under disability, nor [anyone on their behalf] shall

<!-- PageBreak -->

be permitted or allowed to take action . .. . " (emphasis added). Subsection (2)
thus confirms that the phrase "the person under disability" is not a specific
reference to a person with a legal representative under subsection (1)(a), but more
broadly, any "person under disability" under subsection (1). Indeed,
subsection (2) refers to subsection (1)(c), which is limited to persons under
disability who do not have a legal representative. Id.

131 Nicola's interpretation would ascribe different meanings to the identical
phrases in subsections (1)(b) and (2). Yet, when "the legislature employs the same
words or phrases in different parts of a statute, then, in the absence of any manifest
indication to the contrary, the meaning attributed to the words or phrases in one
part of the statute should be ascribed to the same words or phrases found
elsewhere in the statute." Colo. Common Cause v. Meyer, 758 P.2d 153, 161 (Colo.
1988). To ascribe consistent meaning across these references in subsections (1)(b)
and (2), we instead interpret them as pointing to the same overarching condition
in subsection (1): "a person under disability at the time [their] right accrues."
§ 13-81-103(1). In sum, the definite article in subsection (1)(b) is not a reference to
subsection (1)(a) but rather to subsection (1).

132 We further disagree with Nicola and the division below that
subsection (1)(b) must be construed to apply only when the person under
disability has a legal representative because subsection (1)(b) references "the

<!-- PageBreak -->

period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]," and subsection (1)(a) applies only when
the person under disability has a legal representative. § 13-81-103(1)(a)-(b).

133 Nicola's and the division's interpretation cannot be squared with the
language in subsection (1)(c). Subsection (1)(c) likewise refers to "the expiration
of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]." § 13-81-103(1)(c). Yet,
subsection (1)(c) applies only when "no legal representative has been appointed"
for the person under disability. Id. Thus, the reference to the "period of limitation
in [subsection (1)(a)]" cannot be read to require the appointment of a legal
representative.

134 So, what then is the "period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]"?
Subsection (1)(a) provides that "the applicable statute of limitations shall run
against such person under disability in the same manner, for the same period, and
with the same effect as it runs against persons not under disability."
§ 13-81-103(1)(a); see also § 13-81-101(1), C.R.S. (2025) (defining "[a]pplicable
statute of limitations" as "any statute of limitations which would apply in a similar
case to a person not a person under disability"). Put differently, a claim accrues
and the statute of limitations begins running against a person under disability in
the same way as it would for a person who was not under disability when their
claim accrued.

<!-- PageBreak -->

135 This interpretation aligns with our holding in Kinslow v. Mohammadi, 2024
CO 19, 1 21, 546 P.3d 130, 133-34, a decision issued after the division rendered its
opinion in this case. In that case, a sixteen-year-old was injured when she was
struck by a car. Id. at [ 1, 546 P.3d at 131. Because the plaintiff was a minor when
the accident occurred, she was a "[p]erson under disability" under
section 13-81-101(3) when her claim accrued. See Kinslow, 18, 546 P.3d at 131. She
later turned eighteen, and sued the driver more than two years, but less than three
years, after her eighteenth birthday. Id. at | 1, 546 P.3d at 131. The defendant
moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that under subsection (1)(c), the statute of
limitations expired two years after the plaintiff reached her eighteenth birthday.
Kinslow, 11 1-2, 546 P.3d at 131. We agreed, reasoning that under subsection (1)(c),
when a minor reaches the age of majority (i.e., their disability has terminated)
before the regular statute of limitations has run, that person has the longer of time
remaining on the limitations period, or two years after their eighteenth birthday,
to bring their claim. Id. at "[ 22, 546 P.3d at 134. Because the plaintiff did not bring
her claim within either of those periods, her suit was untimely. Id. at 1 23, 546 P.3d
at 134.

136 As relevant here, we observed in Kinslow that subsection (1)(c) makes clear
that a disability can terminate "before the expiration of the period of limitation."
Id. at | 15, 546 P.3d at 132-33 (quoting § 13-81-103(1)(c)). Logically, this is possible

<!-- PageBreak -->

only if the applicable statute of limitations begins to run before the disability is
terminated. Id., 546 P.3d at 133.

137 The division below assumed, contrary to our subsequent decision in
Kinslow, that section 13-81-103 "tolls" the running of any statute of limitations
against a person under disability during the period of disability, unless the person
is appointed a legal representative. Nicola, 11 33, 46, 544 P.3d at 127, 130; see also
id. at 1 43, 544 P.3d at 129 ("[T]here is no 'period of limitation' in subsection (1)(a)
that accrues, runs, or expires if the person under a disability does not have a legal
representative.").

138 As we explained in Kinslow, "we have referred to [subsection (1)] as tolling
the statute of limitations for a person under disability," but that "[t]he use of the
term 'tolled' in [our prior] cases has obviously caused confusion, and we want to
end that confusion here." TT 17, 21, 546 P.3d at 133. We noted that the two most
relevant cases, Rudnicki v. Bianco, 2021 CO 80, 501 P.3d 776, and Elgin v. Bartlett,
994 P.2d 411 (Colo. 1999), overruled by Rudnicki, 2021 CO 80, 501 P.3d 776, both
involved minors, and in both cases, none of the circumstances specifically
identified in subsection (1)(a), (1)(b), or (1)(c) were present. Kinslow, TT 17, 20,
546 P.3d at 133 ("No legal representative had been appointed, the minor had not
died, and they had not reached the age of majority before the expiration of the
statute of limitations .... "). Thus, we clarified that "[t]he most these cases stand

<!-- PageBreak -->

for is the idea that, when none of the specific provisions of [subsection (1)] are in
play, a minor's statute of limitations will not begin to run until they reach the age
of majority." Id. at | 21, 546 P.3d at 133.

139 Although the plaintiff in Kinslow met the conditions of subsection (1)(c)
(because her disability terminated "before the expiration of the period of
limitation" and she had no legal representative), we concluded that the only
logical reading of that provision was that the limitations period was not tolled, but
in fact had begun to run before the plaintiff's disability terminated. Id. at | 15,
546 P.3d at 132-33 (quoting § 13-81-103(1)(c). Although we did not cite to
subsection (1)(a), the language in subsection (1)(c) that we discussed expressly
refers to the "expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]."
§ 13-81-103(1)(c); see Kinslow, 1 15, 546 P.3d at 132-33.

140 Again, subsection (1)(a) refers broadly to the applicable statute of limitations
that would apply to persons not under disability. § 13-81-103(1)(a).
Subsection (1)(a) further provides, however, that when a person under disability
has a legal representative, that legal representative may bring a claim before the
expiration of the applicable limitations period or two years from the date of their
appointment, whichever is later. Id. (stating that such legal representative "in any
event shall be allowed not less than two years after [their] appointment . .. even

<!-- PageBreak -->

though the two-year period expires after the expiration of the period fixed by the
applicable statute of limitations.").

141 Taken all together, the phrase "before the expiration of the period of
limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]" means before expiration of the applicable statute
of limitations, or, if a legal representative has been appointed, before the expiration
of any additional time to which the legal representative would be entitled under
subsection (1)(a) to bring the claim. § 13-81-103(1)(a)-(c); see also Kinslow, T1 2, 10,
13, 15, 23, 546 P.3d at 131-34.

142 Our interpretation today gives consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect
to all the parts of section 13-81-103. The overarching question governing
subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) is whether a person under disability encounters
circumstances that enable them (or someone else, on their behalf) to bring a claim.
In subsection (1)(a), that is the appointment of a legal representative to advocate
on their behalf. In subsection (1)(c), that is the termination of the legal disability,
which enables the person to advocate on their own behalf. And in
subsection (1)(b), that is their death- when their claim survives to an executor or
administrator who may bring a claim on their behalf.

143 Notably, subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) address situations in which a person
under disability brings a claim while they are alive-either through a legal
representative or on their own after their disability is terminated. In each of those

<!-- PageBreak -->

situations, the claim must be brought within the remaining statute of limitations
or two years after the event that enabled them to bring the claim (i.e., two years
after the date of appointment of a legal representative or two years after the
removal of the disability), whichever period expires later.

144 In contrast, when a person under disability dies under the conditions of
subsection (1)(b), only survival claims may be pursued by the decedent's executor
or administrator, and the limitations period is changed to one year from the
decedent's death-for everyone, whether they had a legal representative or not.
See Kinslow, 1 14, 546 P.3d at 132 (observing that subsection (1)(b) "simply gives
one year following the death of a person under a disability for an executor or
administrator to pursue a claim"); id. at "[ 22, 546 P.3d at 134 (observing that when
a person under disability dies, "an executor or administrator has one year from
that death to pursue any available claim").

145
To summarize:

· Subsection (1)(a) applies when a person under disability has a legal
representative appointed either before the cause of action accrues, or
after the cause of action accrues and before the disability is terminated.
§ 13-81-103(1)(a). The legal representative must bring a claim within the
applicable statute of limitations or two years after their appointment,
whichever is later. Id.

· Subsection (1)(b) applies when a person under disability dies "before the
expiration of the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]" and their
claim survives to an executor or administrator, who must bring the claim
within one year of the decedent's death. § 13-81-103(1)(b).

<!-- PageBreak -->

o If the person under disability had no legal representative
appointed, "the expiration of the period of limitation in
[subsection (1)(a)]" simply refers to the applicable statute of
limitations. Id.

o If the person under disability had a legal representative appointed,
then "the expiration of the period of limitation in
[subsection (1)(a)]" refers to the expiration of the applicable statute
of limitations or two years after the appointment of the legal
representative, whichever is later. Id.

· Subsection (1)(c) applies when a person under disability does not have a
legal representative. § 13-81-103(1)(c). Accordingly, "the expiration of
the period of limitation in [subsection (1)(a)]" simply refers to the
applicable statute of limitations. Id. If their disability is terminated
before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, then they
must bring a claim within the remaining applicable statute of limitations
or two years after the removal of their disability, whichever is later. Id.

146 We acknowledge that our interpretation of section 13-81-103 may
sometimes result in a different limitations period than section 13-80-112, the
general provision governing limitations periods for survival actions. See
§ 13-80-112 (providing that when a person dies before the statute of limitations
expires on their claim, then "the action may be commenced by the personal
representative of the deceased person at any time within one year after the date of
death and not afterwards if barred by provision of this article."). But we need not
harmonize these two provisions, which appear in different articles in title 13.
Section 13-81-103 is the more specific provision established by the legislature
applicable to persons under disability at the time their claim accrues, and only if

<!-- PageBreak -->

the conditions in subsection (1)(a), (1)(b), or (1)(c) are satisfied. § 13-81-103(1);
Kinslow, T 21, 546 P.3d at 133-34.

147 We also recognize that our interpretation today may shorten the amount of
time within which executors and administrators of some decedents under
disability may file claims, depending on the circumstances of a case. However, we
are not at liberty to rewrite section 13-81-103. Our goal is to effectuate the
legislature's intent, and here, the legislature has unambiguously imposed a
one-year limitations period under the circumstances in subsection (1)(b).

## C. Application

148 Turning to the facts of this case, we hold that subsection (1)(b) applies to
Nicola's claims and renders them untimely.

149 First, the parties agree that Danielle was a "[p]erson under disability" as that
term is defined in section 13-81-101(3). The parties also do not dispute that
Danielle was a "person under disability" for purposes of subsection (1) when her
claims accrued. And the parties agree that no legal representative was appointed
for Danielle after the accident and while she was alive.

150 Next, Danielle passed away before the termination of her disability for
purposes of subsection (1)(b) because she never regained full consciousness before
her death on December 12, 2018, nineteen days after the accident. Danielle also
passed away well before the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations,

<!-- PageBreak -->

whether two years under section 13-80-102(1)(h), C.R.S. (2025), or three years
under section 13-80-101(1)(n)(I), C.R.S. (2025). After Danielle's death, Nicola was
appointed personal representative and Danielle's claims for negligence and
premises liability survived to him. Accordingly, under subsection (1)(b), Nicola
had one year from the date of Danielle's death to bring the survival claims.
Because Nicola brought the claims on December 11, 2020, almost two years after
Danielle's death, they are untimely and barred by subsection (1)(b).

## D. Attorney Fees

151 Defendants request attorney fees and costs on appeal as prevailing
defendants under section 13-17-201. When this court affirms a trial court's
judgment dismissing an entire tort action under C.R.C.P. 12(b), an award of
reasonable attorney fees in defending the action is mandatory. § 13-17-201(1).

152 Here, we affirm the district court's judgment dismissing Nicola's survival
claims against Defendants under C.R.C.P. 12(b). As a result, Defendants are
entitled to attorney fees under section 13-17-201.

## IV. Conclusion

153 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the division's judgment and hold that
Nicola's survival claims are untimely. We remand the case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion, including reinstatement of the district court's

<!-- PageBreak -->

judgment dismissing Nicola's complaint and determination of appropriate
attorney fees under section 13-17-201.