The Right to Self-Defense is not Given Up by Employment
Colorado Employer Cannot Punish Employee for Exercising Right of Self Defense
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gmbSG-Nq and at https://zalma.com/blog, #insurancebooks, #insurance books, #amazon.
Post number 5380
In Mary Ann Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 2026 CO 46, No. 25SA134, Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc (June 15, 2026) Moreno, a seventy-two-year-old Circle K employee, was working when an armed robber approached the register with hunting knives, demanded cigarettes for free, and moved behind the counter toward her.
Moreno told him not to come behind the counter and extended her arms, which she characterized as an instinctive act of self-defense. The robber left with cigarettes and was later arrested for armed robbery. Circle K terminated Moreno for violating its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy, and Moreno sued for wrongful discharge in violation of Colorado public policy.
The District court certified a question that only asked the Supreme Court to answer if an exception exists. Instead, the Supreme Court answered only the certified question in the affirmative and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Law:
Colorado recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment when an employee is terminated for refusing illegal conduct, performing a public duty, or exercising an important job-related right or privilege. The public policy must be clearly expressed, sufficiently public, and related to the employee’s role as a worker. The Supreme Court considered whether Colorado’s statutory self-defense provision which recognizes the right to defend one’s life — satisfy that standard.
Discussion/Analysis:
The Colorado Supreme Court held that both the statute and constitutional provision clearly express a public policy favoring lawful self-defense.
The Supreme Court reasoned that section 18-1-704 defines when and how a person may use reasonable force, giving employees and employers notice of the right’s boundaries.
The court further concluded that self-defense is a public right because it protects personal safety and human life, not merely a private proprietary interest.
Finally, the court found the right sufficiently job-related because an unprovoked attack may occur at work; employees do not surrender the right to defend themselves by entering the workplace. The majority emphasized that the exception is narrow and applies only when an employee lawfully exercises self-defense in response to an unprovoked workplace attack.
Conclusion:
The court answered the certified question in the affirmative.
While the Supreme Court concluded that this is a right granted to all people that is not left at the door simply because a person enters the workplace, it emphasized that the scope of the exception is narrow. It is limited, importantly, to self-defense as an essential, inalienable right. Critically, the exception applies only when an employee lawfully exercises the right in response to an unprovoked attack at work.
Colorado law, therefore, recognizes a narrow public-policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is terminated for lawfully exercising the right of self-defense in response to an unprovoked attack at work. The case was returned to the federal district court for further proceedings on the disputed factual issues.
The employment relationship should not be used to strip workers of the ordinary legal privileges every person possesses.
The right to self-defense has never been cabined by role or location.
The right to self-defense is job-related insofar as the need to lawfully defend oneself from an unprovoked attack can occur at work. Thus, even though the right to self-defense—constitutional and statutory — does not explicitly mention workers, it is nonetheless a right guaranteed to workers.
Under the law, it is an essential, inalienable right guaranteed to everyone, including people at work. It is not a right that is left at the door when a person enters the workplace.
ZALMA OPINION
Ms. Moreno, a brave 72-Year-Old employee of Circle K had the right to defend her life against a knife wielding thief and could not be dismissed by her employer for working to survive the assault by the defending her life. The inalienable right guaranteed to everyone, including people at work, protected Ms. Moreno from being fired by her employer.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
