HB 1017: Criminal Restitution Prohibited for Insurers - Colorado

Rerevised → Final Act · 6 edits · Mar 23, 2026

MODERATE

This bill clarifies that insurance companies generally cannot receive criminal restitution payments for losses they cover under a policy, as they should recover those funds through civil lawsuits instead. However, it creates specific exceptions where an insurance company is a direct victim of fraud or theft and must be made whole through the criminal restitution process. The changes also update legal definitions to explicitly exclude standard insurance-covered losses from restitution while including costs for government and workers' compensation programs.

Scope change

The bill narrows the scope of who can receive criminal restitution by explicitly excluding insurers for covered losses, but expands eligibility for government agencies and workers' compensation insurers to receive restitution for medical and health-related costs.

ELIGIBILITY

Insurance companies are now explicitly excluded from receiving criminal restitution for losses they compensate under a private insurance policy, shifting their recovery method to civil actions.

New exceptions allow insurance companies to receive restitution only when they are direct victims of fraud schemes or when their property is physically damaged or stolen by criminal acts.

Costs incurred by government agencies and workers' compensation insurers for medical and health benefits are now explicitly included as eligible for criminal restitution.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'victim' was updated to distinguish between general contractual relationships and specific scenarios where an insurer is a direct victim of fraud or property crime.

REQUIREMENT

Courts are instructed to prioritize making direct victims whole before awarding restitution to insurance companies for covered losses.

ENFORCEMENT

Insurance companies, risk management funds, and public entities are prohibited from defending defendants at restitution hearings or paying civil judgments related to restitution orders.

Revised → Rerevised · 2 edits · Mar 17, 2026

MINOR

The bill was re-revised to include additional Senate sponsors and update the reading status to reflect amendments adopted in the Second House. A significant substantive change was made to the text regarding financial liability, removing a specific exemption that previously allowed insurance companies who compensated victims to avoid certain penalties or liabilities.

Scope change

The bill's scope of applicability was narrowed regarding liability exemptions; insurance companies that compensate victims are no longer excluded from the provisions described in subsections (3)(b), (3)(c), and (3)(d).

REQUIREMENT

Added new Senate sponsors (Coleman, Gonzales J., Jodeh, Kipp, and Wallace) to the bill's sponsorship list.

ELIGIBILITY

Removed an exemption for insurance companies, meaning they are now subject to the same rules as other persons regarding resource expenditures for victim compensation.

Reengrossed → Revised · 3 edits · Mar 16, 2026

MINOR

The bill was reengrossed and revised to include amendments adopted during the second reading in the Second House. The substantive text of the bill remains largely unchanged, with the primary modifications being the update of the bill's status from 'Reengrossed' to 'Revised' and the addition of reading dates. The core policy regarding prohibiting insurers from receiving restitution remains intact.

Scope change

The bill's scope and applicability remain unchanged; the revisions reflect procedural progress in the legislative process rather than new policy requirements.

TECHNICAL

Updated the bill header status from 'Reengrossed' to 'Revised' to reflect that all amendments have been adopted in the Second House.

Added a specific date stamp for the 3rd Reading Unamended (February 25, 2026) to track legislative progress.

Removed the previous 'Reengrossed' status and associated House of Introduction adoption notes.

Engrossed → Reengrossed · 2 edits · Feb 25, 2026

MINOR

The bill was reengrossed to reflect all amendments adopted during the House of Introduction. The primary change is the addition of several new co-sponsors to the House bill, expanding the coalition of legislators supporting the measure. Additionally, the document header was updated to indicate the bill is now 'Reengrossed' rather than 'Engrossed' and includes a placeholder for a future summary.

Scope change

The scope of the bill itself remains unchanged; the modifications are administrative updates to the bill's sponsorship list and version status.

TECHNICAL

Added five new co-sponsors (Bacon, Boesenecker, Lindsay, Mabrey, Martinez, McCluskie, Nguyen, Paschal, Sirota, Woodrow) to the House sponsorship list.

Updated the version header from 'Engrossed' to 'Reengrossed' to reflect the inclusion of all amendments.

Introduced → Engrossed · 5 edits · Feb 24, 2026

MODERATE

The bill was amended to clarify that insurance companies are generally excluded from receiving criminal restitution for losses covered by their policies, as they should recover those funds through civil lawsuits. However, the amendment creates specific exceptions where insurance companies are eligible for restitution if they are victims of fraud schemes or if their property was physically damaged or stolen. The bill also updated the legal definitions to explicitly state that restitution does not cover losses compensable by private insurance and expanded the list of entities eligible for restitution to include government agencies and workers' compensation insurers.

Scope change

The bill's scope was narrowed regarding insurance companies; they are no longer broadly eligible for restitution for contractual losses but are now explicitly included only in cases of fraud or direct property damage/theft.

ELIGIBILITY

Insurance companies are generally excluded from receiving criminal restitution for losses they paid to victims, shifting their remedy to civil litigation.

Insurance companies are now explicitly eligible for restitution if they are victims of a fraud scheme or if their property was damaged or stolen.

Governmental agencies and workers' compensation insurers are now explicitly included as eligible recipients of restitution for medical and support costs.

MODIFIED

The definition of 'restitution' was updated to explicitly exclude losses that can be compensated through private insurance policies.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'victim' was revised to clarify that insurers are victims only in specific fraud or property damage scenarios, not for general contractual losses.

Criminal Restitution Prohibited for Insurers

What changed between versions

How they voted

Actions timeline

Sponsors