One Lawyer for Multiple Accidents

You were already treating from the first crash, or the first fall, and then it happened again. Or the two were months apart and you filed them as if they had nothing to do with each other. They are separate cases. They are not separate bodies.

Colorado does not require one lawyer for multiple accidents. A claim is not thrown out because you used two firms. The reason to put both files with one lawyer is narrower than that. The files talk to each other whether the lawyers do or not. One person who has both dates is less likely to let those files argue against you.

If you are still deciding whether the first crash even needs a lawyer, that is a different question. When to hire a lawyer after a car accident covers it. This page assumes both incidents are real enough that someone has to hold the files.

Where the two files collide

The hard part is not the extra paperwork. Each claim is built on a story about when you got hurt, what got worse, and what you signed. Split that story across two offices that are not comparing notes, and the contradictions show up later, usually in a record you did not write.

The chart

Crash one on March 2. Crash two on June 11. Your neck hurt after the first. Your low back started after the second. Or the neck got worse and nobody wrote down the difference. Months later, two claim handlers are reading the same chart. If the notes do not separate the dates, each side has a reason to say the other incident caused all of it.

A lawyer who has only the second file will write a demand that needs the second crash to explain the whole course of treatment. A lawyer who has only the first file may still be saying you had not reached a stable point when the second crash happened. Both can be careful. Together they can still hand the other side a contradiction you never meant to make.

One lawyer asks the providers for records that mark which symptoms started after which date, and writes both demands from that same timeline. You also stop retelling the medical story to two offices. That sounds small until you have done it for a year.

Fault, including the other crash

Under C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5(1), a defendant in an injury case is generally liable only for that defendant's own percentage of fault, not for everyone else's. Under subsection (3) of that statute, a jury can also be asked to assign fault to someone who is not a party in that lawsuit, if the evidence is there and the notice rules are met. In a two-crash case, that person is often the driver from the other crash.

The second case is not sealed off from the first. The first driver can be blamed, on paper, for part of what you are asking the second driver to pay. The reverse can happen in the first case. That is a records fight. It goes better when one lawyer is looking at both dates before either demand goes out.

Your own fault is also per incident. C.R.S. § 13-21-111 reduces what you can recover by your share of negligence, and bars recovery in that case if your negligence is as great as the defendant's. You can be clear on crash one and disputed on crash two. Those are different files. They should not be written as if they were the same afternoon.

Two clocks

A Colorado lawsuit for bodily injury or property damage from the use or operation of a motor vehicle generally has to be filed within three years after the claim accrues. C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n). Most other injury claims, including many falls, are two years under C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a). That two-year rule does not apply to the motor-vehicle torts covered by the three-year statute.

Talks with an insurer do not pause either clock. If one file is in active negotiation and the other is quiet, the quiet one is the one people miss. A claim against a public entity, a city vehicle, a bus, a government sidewalk, can also have a written-notice deadline measured in months, not years. That notice is not the lawsuit deadline. Who pays after an accident in Colorado maps the usual branches. The point here is narrower: two incidents means two accrual dates, and sometimes two different statutes.

Releases, statements, and liens

Before you sign anything that says you are giving up claims, read what it actually releases. A release drafted for crash one can be worded broadly enough that someone later argues it reached past that crash. This is not a ruling on any particular form. The wording is the issue. A lawyer who has the second file open can read the first release against that second file before you sign. A lawyer who has never seen the second file cannot.

The same caution applies to a recorded statement. What you say about pain, earlier injuries, and the gap between the two dates becomes a document in both files.

Health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and a hospital lien can each look at a later recovery. The rules are not the same payer to payer, and a lien opened under one claim number does not automatically know which settlement it belongs on. Colorado hospital liens are their own subject. With two recoveries in view, the practical risk is promising the same dollar twice, or ignoring a lien because it was opened on the other claim. One disbursement review that can see both files is how that gets sorted.

What one lawyer changes, and what it does not

It does not turn two cases into one case. You still have two incidents, often two defendants, and usually two fee agreements. A contingency fee is a percentage of the recovery on that matter. One lawyer does not mean one fee for two crashes. The point is coordination, not a discount.

Same facts, two ways of holding the files

Question	Two lawyers, two files	One lawyer, both files
Medical story	Told twice. The versions drift.	Told once, with both dates on it.
Deadlines	Each office watches its own clock.	Both clocks on one calendar.
A release on case 1	Read against one file.	Read against both before you sign.
Provider requests	Two requests, often with the dates blurred.	One request that separates the dates.
Fee	Two agreements.	Still two agreements. The savings is confusion, not the percentage.

The day-to-day version is simpler. One portal. One person who already knows the March crash when you call about June. Treatment advice that does not split you in two: one office saying wait for a plateau, the other saying get the injection now, and you stuck in the middle with a body that does not care which file is which.

When one lawyer is the wrong call

Using the same lawyer is a fit question, not a requirement.

• The second accident happened in a state the firm is not licensed in. Elliot Singer is licensed in Colorado, California, Arizona, and Kansas. A crash outside those states is a license question, not a preference. Say so early. Refer the piece that has to go elsewhere, in writing, so the two lawyers still know the other file exists.
• One incident was at work. Workers' compensation runs on its own deadlines and its own limits. The claim against a third party, the other driver, a contractor, can still sit with the injury lawyer, and it should be coordinated with the comp file rather than treated as a stranger to it. Denver workers' compensation is that separate track.
• The two matters put your interests against each other, or the firm already represents someone on the other side. Two crashes, two different at-fault drivers, same client, is ordinarily not that conflict. It can be, if the facts line up that way. A real conflict is a reason to split the files, not a reason to hide one of them.
• The first firm is already behind on the first file. Adding the second crash to a stalled office is not coordination. It is a second missed deadline waiting to happen. If that is the situation, say it. A clean handoff of both, or a clean handoff of the new one with a written timeline of the old one, beats politeness.

If you already have a lawyer on the first crash

Call that lawyer before you hire a second firm. Give them the new date, what hurts now that did not hurt before, and whether anyone has asked you to sign a release or give a statement. Ask, plainly, whether they can take the second matter. If they cannot, because of the state, the case type, or a conflict, ask them to say that in writing and to send the other lawyer the timeline, not a vague promise to cooperate.

If you do not have a lawyer yet and both incidents are still open, start with one conversation that covers both dates. Bring what you have. You do not need a perfect packet.

• Both dates, and where each one happened.
• Claim numbers, if any exist yet.
• The providers you have seen since the first incident, in order.
• Any release, recorded-statement request, or lien notice.
• Photos, the police or incident report if you have it, and the other driver's insurance information if you kept it.

What this is, and what to do next

This is general information about how consecutive injury claims interact, not advice about your files. Deadlines depend on the facts, including when the claim accrued and whether a public entity is involved. If one accident was outside Colorado, that state's deadline controls that file. Statute text should be confirmed against the current official code before anyone relies on a citation in a live case.

The car accident claim process still applies to each crash on its own. What changes, when there are two, is that the process has to be run so the files do not contradict each other.

If both of yours are still open, start with the Denver car accident page or call (720) 432-7032. There is no fee unless we recover for you. The first call should cover both dates, not just the one that hurts most today.

Sources: C.R.S. § 13-21-111 (comparative negligence); C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5 (pro rata liability and nonparty fault); C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(n) (three years, motor-vehicle bodily injury and property damage); C.R.S. § 13-80-102(1)(a) (two years, most other torts).