Baker v. Young
In Baker v. Young, 798 P.2d 889 (Colo. 1990), the supreme court considered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding whether an insurer's obligation to indemnify and defend a nonresident insured was a nonexempt property interest subject to attachment under C.R.C.P. 102 for the purpose of quasi in rem jurisdiction.
After reviewing the case law of this state and other jurisdictions, the court concluded that such obligations constituted nonexempt property that was subject to attachment under C.R.C.P. 102.
In making this determination, the court acknowledged that some states have held that an insurer's obligation to indemnify an insured is so contingent and uncertain that it is not subject to prejudgment attachment or garnishment. However, it rejected the reasoning of these cases.