The Colorado Supreme Court applied a confusing matrix of conditions and deadlines in state law to conclude on Monday that a man waited too long to sue after his daughter was rendered unconscious and later died from a vehicle accident.

At the same time, the justices acknowledged that their interpretation may result in differential treatment for plaintiffs bringing lawsuits over someone’s death, which the Court of Appeals previously rejected as being contrary to lawmakers’ intent.

Danielle Nicola was crossing a Grand Junction street one night in November 2018 when a driver struck and seriously injured her. After spending 19 days unconscious, she died. Her father, John Nicola, settled with the driver who hit her, but he then sued the city and Xcel Energy nearly two years after Danielle Nicola’s death. Those entities owned and maintained a streetlight that, according to John Nicola, was inoperable and contributed to the vehicle-pedestrian collision.

But the litigation became ensnared in a dispute over John Nicola’s deadline to sue given the combination of Danielle Nicola’s 19-day incapacitation, the timing of her death, and her lack of a legal representative before her death. A Mesa County trial judge originally dismissed the claims, reasoning that Danielle Nicola, as a person under legal disability who did not have a representative, had one year following her father’s death to file suit.

In reviewing that decision, a three-judge Court of Appeals panel addressed the interlocking provisions of the law. Contrary to what the trial judge, Grand Junction, and Xcel believed, the appeals court determined the specific provision accounting for a person who dies under disability did not apply to Danielle Nicola, which would have imposed a one-year deadline to sue. Instead, the panel decided her representative — John Nicola — had at least two years from the date of her death to file suit.

The law as a whole is meant to “protect persons under a disability during the period of disability,” wrote Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown. Giving John Nicola just one year to sue after his daughter’s death, when a car crash victim who died instantly would have had much longer, “would contravene that purpose.”

During oral arguments in April 2025, some justices appeared uneasy about the city and Xcel’s argument that the legal representative of someone in Danielle Nicola’s shoes only has one year after her death to file suit, based on her 19-day window of unconsciousness.

“If she had died at the scene, she would have a three-year statute of limitations,” said Justice Brian D. Boatright. “What’s the policy behind that? Because she lived for 19 days she gets less time to file the case?”

“That’s the public policy of the legislature,” responded attorney Franz Hardy for Xcel.

More than a year later, the Supreme Court concluded that the combination of relevant factors did not support the Court of Appeals’ interpretation.

“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,” wrote Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez in the June 29 opinion.

“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 (the law),” she continued. “Our goal is to effectuate the legislature’s intent, and here, the legislature has unambiguously imposed a one-year limitations period under the circumstances.”

Damon Davis, an attorney for John Nicola, said the Supreme Court “selectively applied” the principles of legal interpretation to arrive at its result, which will generate disputes about when an incapacitated person’s legal disability begins.

“The ruling’s reach is greater than people may appreciate. Under the statute, a person under a disability includes anyone under the age of 18,” Davis said. “Thus, the grieving families of deceased children must somehow determine the responsible parties, open an estate, and bring suit within one year, even though the families of adults who died would have one year or the remainder of the statute of limitations, whichever is longer. We have a hard time believing that is what the legislature intended.”

He added that lawmakers should consider whether to revise the law and tailor it more precisely to the needs of various people who are legally disabled, either through incapacitation or through their status as minors.

Attorneys for Grand Junction and Xcel did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is City of Grand Junction et al. v. Nicola.