An employee of a Colorado insurer reports suspected insurance fraud to law enforcement in good faith, though the suspicion later proves mistaken. Under C.R.S. § 10-1-128, the employee:

Why D is correct

C.R.S. § 10-1-128 grants immunity to good-faith reporters of suspected insurance fraud, so a mistaken but honest report creates no liability. The same section keeps the insurer's anti-fraud plan proprietary and out of the Colorado public records.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Immunity attaches to good-faith reports even when the suspicion is not ultimately substantiated.
• B) The statute contemplates reporting to law enforcement and does not condition immunity on prior insurer approval.
• C) Reporting to law enforcement is what the anti-fraud plan is designed to produce; it does not forfeit immunity.

Memory hook

Good faith reported, immunity given — honest mistakes are protected.

Why B is correct

C.R.S. § 10-1-129 protects good-faith reporters of suspected insurance fraud from liability, and C.R.S. § 10-1-128 makes insurers' anti-fraud plans proprietary rather than public records while requiring the statutory fraud warning conspicuously on all printed applications, policies, and claim forms. Reporting is open to any good-faith reporter, not only insurers.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) The statute makes anti-fraud plans proprietary, so they are not public records.
• C) The fraud warning must appear conspicuously on printed applications and policies as well as claim forms — claim forms alone are not enough.
• D) The immunity framework protects any good-faith reporter of suspected fraud, not just insurers.

Memory hook

Report in good faith — § 10-1-129 has your back; plans stay private.

Why D is correct

C.R.S. 10-1-128 grants immunity to persons who report suspected fraud in good faith, which is how the statute encourages internal reporting and law-enforcement cooperation. The insurer's anti-fraud plan under the Colorado fraud statute is built around this reporting duty and the immunity that supports it.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) The statute removes that exposure: good-faith reporting carries immunity from liability.
• B) Immunity attaches to good-faith reports and does not depend on prior insurer approval.
• C) Immunity is not limited to reports about fellow employees; good-faith reports of suspected fraud of any kind are covered.

Memory hook

Report in good faith, sleep without worry - immunity is built in.

Why B is correct

C.R.S. § 10-1-128 requires each licensed insurer to maintain an anti-fraud plan to prevent, detect, and investigate fraud, and it grants immunity to good-faith reporters. Because the employee reported a suspected violation in good faith, her later-disproven suspicion does not create liability; the plan's reporting channel exists to encourage such reports, and the plan itself remains proprietary.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Immunity attaches to the good-faith nature of the report; a criminal conviction or civil proof of fraud is not a precondition of protection.
• C) The statute does not condition immunity on anonymity; a good-faith internal report through the anti-fraud plan is protected.
• D) Immunity is not reserved for officers; employees who report suspected fraud in good faith are protected.

Memory hook

Good-faith fraud reporters are immune, even if the suspicion fizzles.

Why B is correct

C.R.S. § 10-1-129 grants immunity to persons who report suspected insurance fraud in good faith, even if the suspicion turns out to be mistaken. This protection is the reporting backbone of the anti-fraud plan duty in C.R.S. § 10-1-128: employees and others can flag suspicious claims to an insurer's investigative unit without fearing civil liability for honest mistakes.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) A mistaken but good-faith report is precisely what the immunity protects; liability would chill reporting.
• C) There is no statutory obligation for a good-faith reporter to fund the resulting investigation.
• D) Immunity attaches to good-faith reports through the insurer's fraud channels; reporting to law enforcement first is not the immunity condition.

Memory hook

Good faith reported, wrong result? Still immune — honesty buys the shield.

Why B is correct

C.R.S. § 10-1-128 grants immunity from civil action to persons and insurers that report fraudulent-act judgments or settlements to licensing boards, so a good-faith report cannot be the basis of a damages award against the reporting insurer. The immunity protects the reporting channel that the anti-fraud framework depends on.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) The statute grants immunity for good-faith reports, so an adverse report alone does not create liability.
• C) No consent requirement exists; the duty to report fraudulent-act judgments is not conditioned on the wrongdoer's agreement.
• D) The statute does not route reports through prior Division approval; the insurer reports directly to the licensing board.

Memory hook

Report the judgment, face no lawsuit — the statute shields the messenger.

Why B is correct

Under C.R.S. §§ 10-1-128 and 10-1-129, a person who reports suspected insurance fraud in good faith is immune from liability for the report. The immunity protects honest reporters even if the suspicion later proves unfounded, encouraging fraud reporting to insurers, the Colorado Division of Insurance, and law enforcement.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) Good-faith reporters are immune; a later-unfounded suspicion does not create defamation liability.
• C) Nothing in the statute requires telling the suspected person before making a report.
• D) Reports go to the insurer's anti-fraud personnel, the Division, or law enforcement; routing through a producer is not required.

Memory hook

Good-faith reporters get immunity.