Restitution in Colorado Traffic Cases (Title 42)

Restitution in Colorado traffic cases is one of the most complex — and often misunderstood — issues in sentencing.

Although restitution is governed primarily by C.R.S. § 18-1.3-601 et seq., it frequently arises in Title 42 offenses such as careless driving resulting in injury, DUI-related accidents, reckless driving, and hit-and-run cases.

Overview

Restitution is intended to compensate victims for pecuniary losses — the actual financial harm caused by a defendant’s conduct.

In practice, however, determining restitution can be far from straightforward. Insurance coverage, medical expenses, and property damage often overlap, and courts differ in how they interpret the statutory language.

Under C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603(8)(a), the court must order restitution “concerning only the portion of the victim’s pecuniary loss for which the victim cannot be compensated under a policy of insurance.”

This seems simple in theory, but courts interpret it in very different ways.

The Pecuniary vs. Non-Pecuniary Divide

A pecuniary loss refers to a measurable economic loss — something that can be reasonably calculated in money.

Under C.R.S. § 18-1.3-602(3)(a), restitution

“means any pecuniary loss suffered by a victim and includes, but is not limited to, all out-of-pocket expenses, interest, loss of use of money, anticipated future expenses, rewards paid by victims, money advanced by law-enforcement agencies, money advanced by a governmental agency for a service animal, adjustment expenses, and other losses or injuries proximately caused by an offender’s conduct and that can be reasonably calculated and recompensed in money.”

However, restitution does not include damages for physical or mental pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of future earnings, or punitive damages — all of which are non-pecuniary losses.

In traffic cases, both types of harm often coexist: a crash may produce medical bills and car-repair costs (pecuniary) alongside pain, mobility loss, or emotional trauma (non-pecuniary). The court must decide not only what category a loss falls into but also whether insurance coverage adequately compensates it.

Competing Interpretations of Insurance Coverage

Courts in Colorado generally follow one of two interpretive paths:

1. Narrow Interpretation – Pecuniaries Only Some courts focus solely on whether the victim’s economic losses (medical bills, repair costs, lost wages) are fully covered by insurance. If they are, restitution does not enter, even if the victim also claims pain and suffering.
2. Broader Interpretation – Considering Non-Pecuniaries Other courts take a more victim-centered view, reasoning that insurance funds must often cover both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. Under this approach, if non-economic losses are likely to exhaust the policy limits, restitution may be ordered to address any uncompensated pecuniary losses.

Illustrative Example

Consider a careless-driving-resulting-in-injury case:

• Property damage: $4,800
• Medical bills: $21,000
• Out-of-pocket expenses: $1,500
• Defendant’s policy: $25,000 bodily-injury limit / $15,000 property-damage limit

A narrow-view court might find no restitution is due, reasoning that all pecuniary losses can be paid by the insurance policy.

A broader-view court, however, could reach the opposite conclusion. If the victim also suffers substantial non-pecuniary losses — such as pain and suffering — that would reasonably deplete the $25,000 bodily-injury coverage, restitution may still enter for the pecuniary losses that remain uncovered.

This illustrates why restitution outcomes can differ widely depending on the court’s interpretive approach.

Procedural Considerations

Under People v. Brassill, 2024 COA 19, 549 P.3d 242, prosecutors must use reasonable diligence to determine restitution and present the amount at or before sentencing.

In practice, however, district attorneys often request time post-sentencing to finalize restitution amounts — a practice that can create delays and uncertainty for both defendants and victims.

Interpreting Restitution in Practice

Interpretation of Colorado’s restitution statutes varies across jurisdictions.

Some courts apply a narrow, statute-focused reading of C.R.S. § 18-1.3-603(8)(a), while others adopt a broader, restorative-justice perspective emphasizing full victim compensation.

These differing perspectives can yield markedly different results in otherwise similar Title 42 cases.

Ultimately, restitution decisions depend on the specific facts, the available insurance coverage, and the court’s interpretive philosophy regarding the statute’s intent.

Why Legal Guidance Matters

Restitution law in Title 42 cases combines criminal-procedure principles, civil insurance law, and victim-rights policy. Even experienced defense attorneys can be caught off-guard by its nuances.

Courts frequently err on the side of victim protection, and restitution determinations can hinge on subtle arguments about insurance allocation and statutory interpretation.

If you’re facing a traffic case involving restitution in Colorado, call Denver Traffic Defense Lawyer Monte Robbins at 303-355-5148 for a consultation.