Laserfiche WebLink
Employee Protection Act strongly suggests that the General Assembly intended whistleblower <br /> actions to be subject to the provisions of the [CGIA]." Id. at 563. The Reclamation Act also <br /> fails to address the points enumerated by the Lloyd court, and so would also look to the CGIA <br /> for resolution of these issues. <br /> In addition, the Lloyd court noted that the CGIA applies whether the tort alleged is <br /> statutory or common law in origin. "Nowhere [in the CGIA] does the General Assembly <br /> distinguish between torts recognized at common law or by statute." Id. at 564. The Lloyd court <br /> concluded that the doctor's statutory tort was subject to the CGIA and that dismissal was proper. <br /> Here, State wrong-doing regarding reclamation, if any, is a violation of the Reclamation <br /> Act.2 Any State violation of the Reclamation Act sounds in tort. Newt Olson, supra; Mountain <br /> States, supra. The Reclamation Act does not waive sovereign immunity under these <br /> circumstances, and the CGIA does not specify that immunity is waived as to State violations of <br /> the Reclamation Act. C.R.S. § 24-10-106. Therefore, MCR's second and third claims for relief <br /> should be dismissed pursuant to C.R.C.P. 12(b)(1). <br /> 3. MCR's Fourth Claim Sounds in Tort and is thus Barred by <br /> the Governmental Immunity Act. <br /> As stated herein, MCR asserts that the Liquidation Plan constitutes a contract between <br /> MCR and the Division, and further asserts that"all contracts entered into within the state of <br /> Colorado contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." Amended Third Party <br /> Complaint, ¶42. For the reasons stated above concerning claims 2 and 3, MCR's fourth claim <br /> z The Division denies the merits of MCR's second and third claims but for purposes of this Motion to Dismiss the <br /> merits are irrelevant. <br /> 13 <br />