Todd Dieterich, Partner


TODD DIETERICH is a Colorado native and outdoor enthusiast. He received his undergraduate education at the Colorado State University College of Business, receiving a B.S. in both Accounting and Marketing in 2003. After a two year period of working in the accounting and billing department of a prominent Denver insurance defense law firm, he then went to the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, receiving his J.D. in 2008.

While attending law school, Todd interned for the Honorable Judge Angela Arkin in the Arapahoe County District Court, and his insurance defense experience began while clerking for another Denver area insurance defense law firm during his final year of law school.

Todd joined our firm as an Associate in 2012, and was named Non-Equity Partner in February of 2017.  His current practice focuses primarily on personal injury litigation, bad faith insurance defense, premises liability, and construction disputes.

Todd was admitted to the Colorado bar in 2008, and the bar of the U.S. District of Colorado in 2009. His professional associations include the Colorado Bar Association, Denver County Bar Association, and the Colorado Defense Lawyers Association.

Trial History

Phillips v. Smoker, et. al., (2016) Denver County, Defense Verdict
Todd tried and won the case of Aaron Phillips v. Kyle Smoker, et. al. in a 5 day trial in Denver County District Court. This case stemmed from a multi-vehicle accident on the ramp exiting I-25 North onto I-70 East. As both parties rounded that turn approaching I-70 East, they encountered a pickup truck who had spun out and was sitting parallel to oncoming vehicles blocking traffic. Both parties were behind a third vehicle who braked to avoid the stopped vehicle. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was tailgating that vehicle, had insufficient time to stop, and swerved into his lane, striking him and causing him to lose traction and strike the parallel vehicle, strike the cement median and ultimately come to rest in the I-25 South on-ramp where he was struck by an oncoming eighteen wheeler. Defendant alleges that he did change lanes to avoid the vehicle in front of him, but he did so in a safe and prudent manner, and it was the Plaintiff’s excessive speed that caused him to strike the Defendant and the resulting collisions. Plaintiff made claims for neck, back, and shoulder injuries. These injuries allegedly required rhizotomy and facet injections for an indefinite period of time resulting in $1,953,000 in future treatment. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant on all claims.

Nava v. Baxley Kidder, LLC (2015) – Denver County District Court, Granted Motion for Summary Judgment – This matter arose out of a dog bite/attack incident that occurred on July 22, 2013 in Twin Lakes Park in Denver, Colorado.  The two dogs involved in this altercation were owned by a tenant of the Defendant, and had escaped from that property.  As a result of this incident, the Plaintiff alleged that he incurred medical expenses of $18,545.16, lost income and mileage in the amount of $5,807.95, and permanent disfigurement from scars to the face and body. Mr. Dieterich filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56 seeking a declaration that the Defendant owed no duty of care to the Plaintiff, which was granted by the court, and resulted in dismissal of this action in its entirety.

Bevirt v. Holdren, et. al. (2013) – Jefferson County District Court, Defense Verdict – Todd tried and won the case of Bruce Bevirt v. Gale Holdren and Roger Labbe  in a 5 day trial in Jefferson County District Court. The case arose out of a dog attack/bite that occurred on June 18, 2010.  Plaintiff alleged that he was attacked on his own property by the Defendants’ pit bull, Koa.  Plaintiff alleged injuries to his arm, right knee, left ankle, and back.  Plaintiff brought claims for negligence and negligence per se.  Plaintiff sought economic damages in the amount of $92,000 for medical bills and $151,946 for lost income, non-economic damages for disfigurement, and punitive damages against the Defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendants on all claims.

Morgan v. Reed, et. al.(2013) – Weld County Court, Defense Verdict –   Todd tried and won the case of Russell H. Morgan v. William Reed and Sherry Reed in Weld County Court.  This case was a landlord-tenant dispute wherein Plaintiff Russell Morgan brought an action against his former tenants William and Sherry Reed, for violating the lease which they had executed.  The Defendants filed a counterclaim wherein they admit that they inhabited the premises and did not pay rent, but claim that they were entitled to do so as Mr. Morgan had breached the implied warranty of habitability.  In their counterclaim, Defendants allege that there was water damage and mold on the premises which caused them to incur medical expenses, lost wages, and various costs and expenses.  These claims are based upon theories of the breach of the implied warranty of habitability, constructive eviction, and breach of the lease.  Mr. Dieterich was retained to defend those counterclaims, and ultimately took over responsibilities at trial for the Plaintiff’s claims as well. The court returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff on his claims for violation of the lease, and in favor of the Plaintiff on all of the Defendants’ counterclaims.

Kelley v. LaVogue (2013) – Arapahoe County District Court.  Todd successfully tried James Kelley v. Derek LaVogue, a 4 day jury trial in Arapahoe County.  This case arose out of an incident wherein the pickup truck in which the Plaintiff was a front seat passenger was rear-ended by the Ford Explorer driven by Defendant at the intersection of Chambers Road and Quincy Avenue. Plaintiff claimed that he sustained serious back and neck injuries including medical expenses of $27,676.58, future medical expenses, non-economic damages, and physical impairment and disfigurement.  The Defendant admitted negligence and liability, but denied that plaintiff had suffered past and future injuries and damages to the extent claimed.  Prior to trial, and following an order of proof, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages based upon allegations of cell phone use at the time of collision.  Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict well beneath the Plaintiff’s final demand before trial.

Phone Extension: 19

Paralegal: Daria Duwe ǀ

Legal Assistant: Marina Miller ǀ