Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
  • S
  • Slack v. Farmers Insurance ExchangeSlack v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
From our private database of 16,800+ case briefs...

Slack v. Farmers Insurance Exchange

Colorado Supreme Court
5 P.3d 280 (2000)


Juliette Slack (plaintiff) stopped at a red light waiting to make a right turn. As she began to make the turn, another vehicle ran the stoplight forcing Slack to slam on her brakes and causing her to sustain injuries to her chin, head, and neck. The following day, Slack was treated by her chiropractor who later submitted all charges to Slack’s insurer, Farmers Insurance Exchange (Farmers) (defendant). Farmers decided to obtain a second opinion regarding Slack’s injuries and sent her to Dr. Lloyd Lachow (defendant), an independent medical examiner. Farmers was aware that Lachow had allegedly sexually assaulted another one of its female insureds. During his examination of Slack, Dr. Lachow touched her clothed breast and pushed his pelvis into her back. Additionally, Dr. Lachow pulled hard on Slack’s neck and shook her head violently from side-to-side putting her in additional pain. Slack filed a six-count suit against Lachow. In the same action, Slack filed suit against Farmers claiming negligence, breach of contract, bad faith breach of contract, and outrageous conduct. Slack’s husband, Brett (plaintiff), brought a claim against Farmers for loss of consortium. The Slacks settled with Lachow prior to trial. Thereafter, Farmers designated Lachow a nonparty whose fault should be considered in apportioning the resulting total liability and damages. The jury held in favor of the Slacks and awarded Juliette $40,000 for her injuries and $16,000 in exemplary damages. Additionally, the jury awarded Brett $6,000 for his loss of consortium and $2,400 in exemplary damages. The jury apportioned 60 percent fault to Lachow and 40 percent fault to Farmers. The trial court reduced Juliette’s award in accordance with Farmer’s apportioned fault. However, the trial court did not reduce Brett’s award accordingly. Slack appealed the reduction of her award. Farmers cross-appealed the trial court’s refusal to apportion the damages awarded to Brett. The court of appeals held in favor of Farmers on both issues. The Slacks appealed. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Kourlis, J.)

Dissent (Rice, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 450,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 450,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,800 briefs, keyed to 224 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial