Statute text
If the court determines that the limitation period of another state applicable under sections 13-82-104 and 13-82-105 is substantially different from the limitation period of this state and has not afforded a fair opportunity to sue upon or imposes an unfair burden in defending against the claim, the limitation period of this state applies.
History
Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 478, 1, effective July 1.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Where length of foreign government's statute of limitations was not so fundamentally unfair or unjust as to be repugnant to Colorado's public policy, section does not provide a basis for non-recognition of a final, conclusive foreign judgment. Milhoux v. Linder, 902 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1995).
The plain language of this section limits its applicability to cases in which a court determines under the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act (and not 13-80-110) that a claim is barred by the limitations period of another state. Jenkins v. Haymore, 208 P.3d 265 (Colo. App. 2007), aff'd, 208 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2009).
Contractual choice-of-law provision was clear and unambiguous that the state in which plaintiff's predecessor in interest was headquartered when the contract was executed was the parties' designation as their choice-of-law state. Mtn. States Adjustment v. Cooke, 2016 COA 80, 412 P.3d 819.
The fact that a contractual choice-of-law provision does not include words such as "shall", "exclusively", or "only" does not necessarily make the provision permissive; no specific language is required to make such a provision mandatory. Mtn. States Adjustment v. Cooke, 2016 COA 80, 412 P.3d 819.