Hertz Corporation v. Stanislav Babayev and Oleg Chikov

── Hertz Corporation v. Stanislav Babayev and Oleg Chikov ── Court: Supreme Court of Colorado Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General 1 2026 CO 26 Hertz Corporation, Petitioner v. Stanislav Babayev and Oleg Chikov, Respondents No. 24SC183 Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc April 27, 2026           Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No. 23CA117          Judgment Reversed           Attorneys for Petitioner: Covington & Burling LLP Allan B. Moore Lauren Willard Zehmer Washington, District of Columbia.           Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP Theresa Wardon Benz, Denver, Colorado.           Patterson Ripplinger, P.C. Franklin D. Patterson Greenwood Village, Colorado.           Attorneys for Respondents: Western Slope Law Nelson A. Waneka, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 2           Galperin and Associates Jacob Galperin Jordan Willison, Denver, Colorado.           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae American Car Rental Association: Spencer Fane LLP Evan Bennett Stephenson Hannah S. McCalla, Denver, Colorado.           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Division of Insurance: Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General Heather Flannery, First Assistant Attorney General Evan Spencer, Senior Assistant Attorney General Gabriel Young, Assistant Attorney General Denver, Colorado.           Attorneys for Amici Curiae Colorado Trial Lawyers Association and American, Association for Justice: Levin Sitcoff PC Robyn Levin James W. Hart, Denver, Colorado.           Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Truck Renting and Leasing Association: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP Kendra N. Beckwith, Denver, Colorado.           JUSTICE SAMOUR delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE MARQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined.           JUSTICE HOOD, joined by JUSTICE GABRIEL and JUSTICE BLANCO, concurred in part and dissented in part. 3           OPINION           SAMOUR JUSTICE.          ¶1 "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No; calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg." Bank One Dayton, N.A. v. Limbach, 553 N.E.2d 624, 627 n.5 (Ohio 1990) (quoting John Bartlett, The Shorter Bartlett's Familiar Quotations 218(d) (Christopher Morely ed., 1953)). This famous aphorism often attributed to Abraham Lincoln helps frame today's decision. Words cannot alter facts. One may call something whatever one likes, but the underlying reality remains unchanged. A dog has four legs, and relabeling its tail a "leg" doesn't magically create a fifth one. So too here. Plaintiffs may label the car rental company before us an insurer based on its involvement in claims handling and its significant financial incentives in resolving claims. But the reality remains the same: Under Colorado law, the car rental company does not qualify as a statutory insurer or as a common-law de facto insurer.          ¶2 The specific issue we confront today is narrow but carries outsized importance to the car rental industry—and potentially beyond: Can a car rental company be deemed an insurer of customers who purchase a "Liability Insurance Supplement" ("supplemental insurance") through their rental agreement and thereby become additional insureds on a policy listing the car rental company as the insured and the car rental company's insurer as the policy insurer? Our analysis focuses on two dispositive questions. First, did the legislature intend to 4 treat car rental companies offering supplemental insurance as insurers under title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, which governs "Insurance"? Second, does our decision in Cary v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 68 P.3d 462 (Colo. 2003), sanction the treatment of car rental companies offering supplemental insurance as de facto insurers (that is, insurers in practice) under the common law? We answer no to both questions.          ¶3 We hold that, although a car rental company may offer its customers supplemental insurance t