Trujillo v. Colorado Division of Insurance

Summary

The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the revocation of Milton Trujillo’s insurance producer and bail-bonding-agent license and the denial of his renewal application. The court held that the fiduciary-duty provision in section 10-2-704(1)(a) did not apply because the person who paid the bail premium was not an “insured” under the statute. It reversed the court of appeals and remanded for reconsideration of the sanction based on other, unappealed violations.

Holdings

1. Section 10-2-704(1)(a) did not impose a fiduciary duty to Espinoza because she was not an "insured" within the meaning of the statute. The statute could not be expanded to create a fiduciary duty to a person who merely transmitted money to a bail bonding agent but did not qualify as an insured.
2. The agency's sanction could not be affirmed without reconsideration because it was unclear whether the Commissioner would have imposed the same sanction absent reliance on the invalid fiduciary-duty theory. The unappealed findings concerning recordkeeping and reporting violations remained final and could support a sanction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether section 10-2-704(1)(a), Colorado Revised Statutes, imposed a fiduciary duty on Trujillo to Espinoza in connection with the bail-bond transaction.
2. Whether the agency's revocation of Trujillo's license and denial of his renewal application could be upheld based on the unappealed statutory and regulatory violations apart from the fiduciary-duty theory.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded