Comparative Negligence in Colorado: A Guide

You're driving through a green light in Denver when—bam—someone turning left smashes into your passenger side. You're hurt, your car is wrecked, and your life is suddenly a chaotic mess of doctor visits and missed work. In Colorado, this scenario plays out thousands of times annually, leaving victims overwhelmed and uncertain about next steps. Colorado law provides important protections for injured parties, but understanding them is crucial. Under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, there's a three-year statute of limitations to file a personal injury claim—meaning the clock starts ticking from the date of the accident. Additionally, Colorado follows a modified comparative negligence standard under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, allowing recovery even if the injured party is partially at fault, provided they're not more than 50% responsible. Non-economic damages—compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress—are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Navigating these legal parameters while recovering from injuries requires knowledge and strategic planning to maximize rightful compensation.

A few days later, the phone rings. It's the other driver's insurance adjuster. They sound so… nice. So concerned. And then, a few minutes into the conversation, they slip it in. That friendly tone often masks a strategic goal: minimizing the claim's value. Understanding Colorado's legal framework helps protect against this common tactic. Under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, injured parties have three years from the injury date to file a lawsuit—a deadline that pressures quick settlements. Additionally, Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule under C.R.S. § 13-21-111 bars recovery if the injured party is found more than 50% at fault. Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. These statutes create a complex negotiation landscape where insurance adjusters leverage time constraints and liability nuances to their advantage, making informed decision-making essential for injury victims.

During cross-examination in a Colorado personal injury case, opposing counsel may pose seemingly innocent questions designed to undermine a plaintiff's credibility: "So, you were driving a dark-colored car at dusk?" "Were you maybe going just a little over the speed limit?" "Did you see them starting to turn at all?" These inquiries carry significant weight because Colorado follows modified comparative negligence rules under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, which bars recovery if a plaintiff is found more than 50% at fault. Even minor admissions about visibility conditions or speed can substantially reduce damages awards. Additionally, plaintiffs must file suit within three years of injury under C.R.S. § 13-80-101. Non-economic damages—covering pain, suffering, and emotional distress—are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Understanding how such questioning tactics may affect case value makes skilled legal representation essential in Colorado personal injury litigation.

These aren't innocent questions. They're scalpels. Each one is a careful, calculated incision designed to slice away a piece of the claim. The adjuster's only job is to find a way—any way—to pin some of the blame on the injured party. Why? Because under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), every percentage point of fault they can shift is pure profit for their company. If an injured person is found more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover damages at all. This creates enormous pressure to accept inflated settlement offers before the three-year statute of limitations expires under C.R.S. § 13-80-101. The stakes are real: non-economic damages alone are now capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Insurance companies know these rules intimately and exploit them relentlessly. Understanding how comparative negligence works isn't optional—it's essential armor against systematic claim reduction tactics.

The Trick Insurance Companies Don't Want You to Know

Insurance adjusters aren't looking for truth. They're hunting for leverage. Their entire business model depends on minimizing payouts, and their most effective weapon is twisting Colorado's fault laws against injured claimants. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a person can only recover damages if they're found less than 50% at fault. Insurance companies exploit this standard aggressively, inflating claimant fault percentages to disqualify cases or drastically reduce settlements. They also weaponize Colorado's three-year statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101), knowing that tight deadlines create pressure for quick, undervalued settlements. Additionally, while non-economic damages are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, adjusters downplay these awards entirely during negotiations. By understanding how insurers manipulate these legal frameworks, injured parties can better recognize settlement offers that fall short of fair compensation and recognize when professional representation becomes essential to protect their rights.

They know the law inside and out—especially the parts that can save them a fortune. Their goal from the first phone call is to build a narrative of shared blame. Even if their driver was 99% wrong, they will spend all their time digging for that 1% they can pin on you.

Why? Because pushing even a fraction of the fault your way achieves two things:

• It reduces the value of your claim, dollar for dollar.
• It lays the groundwork to deny your claim entirely.

They want to make you doubt yourself. They want you to think, "Well, maybe I could have braked a little sooner." That tiny seed of doubt is all they need. It's how they turn a clear case of negligence into a muddy dispute where you end up paying for someone else's mistake. This strategy works because Colorado law allows defendants to claim comparative negligence. Under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, if an injured party is found more than 50% at fault, they cannot recover damages at all. Insurance adjusters know this threshold, and they'll exploit any hesitation to suggest shared responsibility. They'll twist your words, highlight minor decisions you made, and build a narrative of mutual fault where none exists. Understanding Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule is critical. Combined with the three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, victims have a limited window to protect their rights before evidence fades and memories blur—making early clarity about actual fault essential.

This Is the 51% Cliff That Can Obliterate Your Claim

Forget the dense legal jargon of Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-21-111. Here’s all you need to know.

Colorado uses a system of "modified comparative negligence" under C.R.S. § 13-21-111. It means an injured party can recover money for injuries as long as a jury finds them 50% or less at fault for the accident. However, the moment a plaintiff's share of the blame crosses the threshold to 51%, the entire claim disappears—regardless of how severe the injuries or substantial the damages. This creates what lawyers call the "51% cliff," a stark legal boundary where a single percentage point can mean the difference between recovering compensation and walking away empty-handed. Non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Additionally, plaintiffs must file within Colorado's three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101. Understanding how comparative negligence affects claim viability is essential, as insurers and defendants frequently challenge fault percentages to push liability above that critical threshold.

You get zero. Zilch. Nada. No money for your medical bills, your lost income, or your shattered peace of mind.

This isn't an accident. Colorado law creates a brutal, all-or-nothing cliff under the modified comparative negligence rule outlined in C.R.S. § 13-21-111. The law states that if a claimant bears 50% or more of the fault, the claim is completely barred—no recovery at all. And the insurance company's entire strategy is to push claimants over that edge. They aren't just trying to pay less—they are actively trying to pay nothing by inflating the injured party's percentage of fault. This cliff is particularly devastating given Colorado's statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, which allows only three years to file suit. Combined with non-economic damages capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, claimants face compressed timelines and limited recovery windows. Insurance adjusters exploit these legal realities relentlessly, using aggressive tactics and questionable fault assignments to disqualify legitimate claims entirely.

This is the cold, hard reality of comparative negligence in Colorado.

As you can see, the difference between 50% fault and 51% fault is the difference between a fair recovery and a total loss. That single percentage point is the battlefield where your entire financial future is won or lost. Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule, codified in C.R.S. § 13-21-111, establishes a critical threshold: plaintiffs who are 50% or less at fault may recover damages, but those found 51% or more at fault cannot recover anything. This means crossing that 51% line eliminates all compensation, including non-economic damages capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. The stakes intensify when considering Colorado's three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, which means this crucial determination must happen quickly before claims expire entirely. Understanding how fault percentages are calculated and contested becomes essential to protecting your right to recovery.

How Your Fault Wipes Out Your Money

Let's look at the math. Imagine your total damages are $100,000.

Your Percentage of Fault	Can You Get Paid?	Your Payout on a $100,000 Claim
0%	Yes	$100,000
30%	Yes	$70,000 (Reduced by your 30% fault)
50%	Yes	$50,000 (Reduced by your 50% fault)
51%	No	$0 (Your claim is completely barred)

This isn't how it works everywhere. Some states let injured parties recover even if they're 99% at fault. Colorado doesn't. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule, codified in C.R.S. § 13-21-111, plaintiffs cannot recover damages if they bear 50% or more responsibility for the injury. This creates a hard bar that insurance carriers frequently exploit, giving them a perverse incentive to find—or manufacture—just enough blame to disqualify claims entirely. The stakes are significant. Colorado caps non-economic damages at $1,500,000 as of 2025, meaning even successful claimants face limits on pain and suffering awards. Combined with Colorado's three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, the window to file a claim is narrow. Insurance companies know these rules intimately and leverage them strategically. Understanding how Colorado's fault system differs from other jurisdictions is essential for anyone evaluating a potential personal injury claim.

This Is How They Manufacture Fault From Thin Air

Insurance adjusters are architects of blame. They don't investigate accidents; they build cases against victims. They use a well-worn playbook of psychological tricks and legal misdirection to assign just enough fault to slash—or erase—your claim. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), victims cannot recover if found more than 50% at fault. This legal threshold gives adjusters a powerful incentive to manufacture shared responsibility, even in clear-cut cases. They'll scrutinize every decision before the accident, every moment during it, searching for any thread of fault they can weave into their narrative. Their goal is simple: push fault percentages high enough to eliminate recovery entirely or reduce compensation below what non-economic damages alone might reach—now capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Meanwhile, victims have only three years from the accident date to file suit under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, creating time pressure that adjusters exploit relentlessly.

They are counting on you not knowing the rules of their game. Let's fix that. Right now.

The Recorded Statement Ambush

This is their go-to move. The adjuster calls, sounding like a trusted friend, and asks for a "quick recorded statement to process the claim." What seems like a routine conversation is actually a calculated strategy. Insurance companies use recorded statements to lock claimants into narratives before they fully understand the claim's value or complexity. Under Colorado law (C.R.S. § 13-80-101), there's a three-year statute of limitations to file a personal injury lawsuit—time that can work against unprepared claimants. Additionally, Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111) bars recovery if the claimant is found more than 50% at fault. Recorded statements can be weaponized to establish fault percentages. Non-economic damages, capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, depend heavily on how injuries are characterized early on. Adjusters exploit the urgency claimants feel, capturing statements before legal counsel reviews the case. Accepting that friendly call without representation can significantly diminish settlement leverage and claim value.

Never, ever agree to this without talking to a lawyer.

This isn't a chat. It's an interrogation. Insurance adjusters use leading questions, awkward silences, and feigned sympathy to bait claimants into damaging statements. An innocent "I'm so sorry this happened" is twisted into an admission of guilt. A hesitant "I guess I didn't see him until the last second" becomes proof of inattention. They aren't looking for context; they're mining for soundbites to undermine a claim. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence standard (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a claimant cannot recover if found more than 50% at fault. Insurance companies weaponize recorded statements to manufacture that threshold. A casual remark, taken out of context, can shift fault calculations dramatically. Additionally, while Colorado allows three years to file suit under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, statements made during early settlement discussions create a permanent record. With non-economic damages capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, every word matters. What seems like a cooperative conversation is actually a high-stakes negotiation where silence often protects interests better than speech.

Misrepresenting Colorado Law

Adjusters love to act like legal scholars. They will confidently tell injured parties that because they were changing lanes, turning left, or backing up, they are automatically partly at fault. This is often a deliberate misstatement of Colorado law. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a plaintiff can recover damages even if partially at fault—as long as their negligence does not exceed 50 percent. Being engaged in a specific maneuver does not automatically create liability. Colorado law requires proof of actual negligence, not mere participation in a traffic situation. Insurance adjusters frequently use these false legal arguments to pressure claimants into accepting lower settlements. Understanding Colorado's actual comparative negligence standards is critical, particularly when considering that injured parties have three years from the date of injury to file suit (C.R.S. § 13-80-101), and potential non-economic damages can reach up to $1,500,000 as of 2025. Misrepresentations about fault should never go unchallenged.

Their goal is to create official-sounding justifications for the conclusion they've already reached: the injured party is to blame. It's a carefully orchestrated performance designed to intimidate claimants into accepting a fraction of what they deserve. Insurance adjusters accomplish this by selectively interpreting Colorado's comparative negligence rules under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, which allows recovery only when the plaintiff bears 50% or less fault. They exploit this threshold by inflating the claimant's percentage of responsibility, knowing most people won't fight back. Meanwhile, they downplay the three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, which gives injured parties substantial time to pursue claims. They may also mischaracterize non-economic damages caps—currently set at $1,500,000 as of 2025—to minimize settlement offers. These tactics create a false sense of urgency and hopelessness, pressuring claimants to accept inadequate compensation before understanding their actual legal rights and the full value of their claim.

Weaponizing Your Medical Care

Couldn't get a doctor's appointment for two weeks? Had to miss a physical therapy session for a family emergency? The adjuster will pounce on this. Insurance companies scrutinize gaps in medical treatment as evidence that injuries weren't serious or that the claimant failed to mitigate damages. These gaps can significantly undermine a claim's value, particularly given Colorado's strict comparative negligence standard under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, which bars recovery entirely if the injured party is found more than 50% at fault. While non-economic damages are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, adjusters weaponize treatment delays to argue claimants contributed to their own injuries or losses. Understanding this tactic is critical, especially since claims must be filed within Colorado's three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101. Documented medical care—even when scheduling is difficult—strengthens the case narrative and protects against insurer arguments that downplay injury severity or suggest comparative negligence.

They'll argue any gap in treatment means the injured party either wasn't really that hurt or, even worse, that they made their own injuries worse by not following doctor's orders perfectly. It's a cynical, disgusting tactic—using the real-world difficulties of recovery against claimants. This is where insurers execute their worst strategy: inflating comparative fault to undermine or eliminate claims entirely. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence law (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a claimant loses the right to recover if found more than 50% at fault. Insurance companies weaponize treatment gaps to push fault percentages over that threshold. They ignore legitimate reasons for delayed care—financial constraints, work schedules, or transportation barriers—and frame them as evidence of minimal injury. Meanwhile, non-economic damages, capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, already limit recovery for pain and suffering. With a three-year statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101) ticking down, claimants must protect their claims aggressively against these manipulative tactics.

The Absurdity of Blaming the Victim

Sometimes their arguments are just plain desperate. They'll blame your choice of footwear in a slip-and-fall case. They'll suggest your music was too loud in a car wreck. These deflection tactics attempt to shift responsibility away from the negligent party and onto the injured person. However, Colorado's modified comparative negligence law limits this strategy. Under C.R.S. § 13-21-111, a defendant cannot recover damages if they are found 50% or more at fault—but plaintiffs can still recover even if partially responsible. Insurance companies and opposing counsel know this legal framework, yet they continue deploying victim-blaming arguments anyway. They're betting that injured parties won't understand their rights or will simply give up. The stakes are real, especially considering Colorado's three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101 and non-economic damages caps reaching $1,500,000 as of 2025. Understanding how these laws work helps accident victims recognize when defense tactics cross from legitimate strategy into pure obstruction.

These are just jabs thrown to see what sticks—to make claimants doubt themselves and wear them down. It all comes back to their prime directive: inflating a victim's fault to zero out the claim is always the end game. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a defendant can block recovery entirely if the injured party is found more than 50% at fault. This legal threshold gives insurers powerful motivation to exaggerate victim culpability. They'll attack credibility, highlight any minor misstep, and construct narratives that shift blame. Meanwhile, claimants have only three years from the injury date to file suit under Colorado's statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101)—a deadline that pressures quick settlements. Adding to the stakes, non-economic damages are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, further limiting recovery potential. Understanding these tactics and timelines helps claimants recognize when aggressive defense strategies are simply manufactured doubt designed to undermine legitimate claims.

Here's How the Numbers Actually Work

Let's ground this in reality. The whole concept of comparative negligence in Colorado comes down to the final check—or lack thereof. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule, codified in C.R.S. § 13-21-111, a plaintiff can recover damages only if they are 50% or less at fault for the accident. Cross that threshold into majority fault, and recovery becomes impossible, regardless of the defendant's actions. This 50% bar fundamentally shapes every personal injury case in the state. Beyond liability percentages, timing matters enormously. Colorado imposes a strict three-year statute of limitations under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, meaning claims filed even one day late are barred forever. For those who clear both hurdles, non-economic damages—pain, suffering, emotional distress—are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Understanding how these three elements interact reveals what's truly at stake in Colorado personal injury litigation.

Scenario 1: The Aurora Fender-Bender

You get T-boned by someone who ran a stop sign. Total damages: $50,000. However, the adjuster discovers you were going five miles over the speed limit and assigns you 15% fault. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a claimant can recover damages as long as their fault doesn't exceed 50%. Since your 15% fault falls below that threshold, you remain eligible to pursue the claim. Your recovery would be reduced by your proportionate fault—meaning you'd receive $42,500 instead of the full $50,000. Understanding these nuances matters because Colorado imposes a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims (C.R.S. § 13-80-101), meaning you must file suit within that window. Additionally, non-economic damages like pain and suffering are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, which affects how compensation is calculated in more serious injury cases.

• The Math: $50,000 - 15% ($7,500) = $42,500.
• The Takeaway: Your “minor” infraction just cost you $7,500.

Scenario 2: The Fort Collins Slip and Fall

You slip on an unmarked wet floor in a grocery store and sustain significant injuries. Your damages, including pain and suffering, total $100,000. The store's insurer pulls security footage and sees you were glancing at your phone just before you fell. They assign you 30% fault for failing to watch where you were walking. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a plaintiff can recover damages only if their fault does not exceed 50%. Since you're assigned 30% fault, you remain eligible to recover—but your award would be reduced by that percentage. Additionally, Colorado law caps non-economic damages such as pain and suffering at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Claims like this must be filed within three years of the incident date under Colorado's statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101). Understanding how fault assignment affects recovery is critical in slip-and-fall cases.

• The Math: $100,000 - 30% ($30,000) = $70,000.
• The Takeaway: A moment of distraction—something every human does—is now being used to deny you $30,000. For help with these calculations, see our guide on how to calculate pain and suffering damages.

Scenario 3: The I-70 Pileup

Things get messy. A truck, another car, and the injured party are all involved in a serious collision. The damages are life-altering—totaling $500,000 in medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. A jury decides the truck driver was 60% at fault, the other car was 20% at fault, and the injured party was 20% at fault for following too closely. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), an injured party can recover damages only if their fault does not exceed 50%. In this scenario, the injured party's 20% fault falls well below that threshold, allowing recovery. The jury would reduce the $500,000 award by the injured party's proportional fault, resulting in a $400,000 recovery. It's crucial to note that Colorado imposes a $1,500,000 cap on non-economic damages as of 2025, and claims must be filed within three years under the statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101).

• The Math: $500,000 - 20% ($100,000) = $400,000.
• The Takeaway: That 20% sliver of blame just vaporized a six-figure portion of your recovery. This is why we fight over every single percentage point.

Here's Why Building Your Fortress of Evidence Matters

You can't stop the insurance company from trying to shift blame. But building a fortress of evidence makes their job nearly impossible. Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111) allows recovery even if the injured party is partially at fault—as long as they're not more than 50% responsible. This means insurers will aggressively argue shared liability to reduce payouts. Comprehensive documentation—medical records, accident scene photos, witness statements, and expert analysis—creates an ironclad foundation that undermines bad-faith arguments. Time matters too: Colorado's three-year statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101) applies to personal injury claims, making prompt evidence gathering critical. For serious injuries, non-economic damages including pain and suffering are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, making the strength of your evidence even more vital to maximizing fair compensation. Strong evidence prevents insurers from weaponizing doubt.

In a comparative negligence Colorado case, the person with the best evidence wins. It's that simple. Your word against theirs is a toss-up. Your word backed by a mountain of objective proof is a knockout. Under Colorado's modified comparative negligence standard (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), a plaintiff cannot recover if found more than 50% at fault. This makes evidence absolutely critical—judges and juries need compelling proof to determine fault percentages. Medical records, accident scene photographs, witness statements, police reports, and expert testimony transform weak claims into ironclad cases. Additionally, Colorado's three-year statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101) means evidence preservation becomes time-sensitive. The sooner documentation is gathered, the fresher and more credible it remains. With non-economic damages capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, maximizing other recoverable damages through solid evidence becomes even more important. Building this fortress of evidence distinguishes between cases that settle favorably and those that crumble under scrutiny.

Your Post-Accident Battle Plan

In the chaos after a crash, your phone is your most powerful weapon. Here’s exactly what you need to do.

1. Become a Crime Scene Photographer. Take pictures and videos of everything. Vehicle damage, skid marks, traffic signs, debris fields, weather conditions. There is no such thing as too many photos.
2. Get the Police Report. It’s not legally binding, but it’s powerful. An officer’s initial assessment of fault can shut down an adjuster’s ridiculous arguments before they even start.
3. Collect Witness Intel. Did someone see what happened? Get their name and number. An independent witness is gold. Their unbiased account can dismantle an entire blame-shifting narrative.
4. Preserve Your Evidence. Keep everything. Your bloody clothes, your busted helmet, your damaged phone. Don’t repair your car until a lawyer says it’s okay. This is all crucial proof.

Every piece of evidence gathered is a brick in the wall—a barrier that makes it harder for the insurance company to invent its own version of reality. From medical records and accident scene photos to witness statements and repair estimates, documentation creates an objective foundation that supports injury claims. Understanding Colorado's legal landscape is essential. Under C.R.S. § 13-80-101, injured parties have three years from the accident date to file a personal injury lawsuit, making timely evidence collection critical. Colorado's modified comparative negligence rule, governed by C.R.S. § 13-21-111, allows recovery only if fault doesn't exceed 50 percent—another reason solid evidence matters. Additionally, non-economic damages including pain and suffering are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025, making the damage calculation process increasingly important. Each photograph, statement, and record strengthens the injured party's position and demonstrates the full scope of losses. Strategic documentation transforms a claim from mere assertion into compelling proof.

This all seems overwhelming. I get it. But you don’t have to do it alone.

The insurance company has a team of experts working around the clock to deny claims. You deserve equally dedicated representation. When injuries occur and insurers employ delay tactics or lowball offers, experienced legal counsel becomes essential. A free consultation can clarify what happened and establish a strategic path forward. Colorado law provides important protections. Under the state's modified comparative negligence rule (C.R.S. § 13-21-111), injured parties can recover damages even if partially at fault—as long as their responsibility doesn't exceed 50%. However, time matters critically. Colorado's statute of limitations (C.R.S. § 13-80-101) allows three years to file a personal injury lawsuit. Missing this deadline eliminates legal recourse entirely. Additionally, non-economic damages—compensation for pain, suffering, and emotional distress—are capped at $1,500,000 as of 2025. Understanding these legal frameworks helps maximize recovery. An initial consultation evaluates the specific circumstances, explains available options, and outlines realistic outcomes based on Colorado's injury laws and insurance practices.

---

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is unique, and you should consult with a qualified attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation.