within scope of employment was not disputed); Hilzer v. MacDonald, 169 Colo. 230, 454 P.2d 928, 931-32 (1969) (affirming district court’s dismissal of suit against employer because plaintiff had already received benefits); McKeIvy v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 983 P.2d 42, 43-44 (Colo.Ct.App.1998) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where plaintiff admitted injury occurred in the scope of employment); Colo. Comp. Ins. Auth. v. Baker, 955 P.2d 86 (Colo.Ct.App.1998) (affirming dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where claimants had already received benefits). On the other hand, in cases where the parties have challenged the existence of the state law bar, the issue has always been sent to the trier of fact. See J & K Constr. Co. v. Molton, 154 Colo. 214, 390 P.2d 68, 73-74 (1964) (<HOLDING>); United Cable Television of Jeffco, Inc. v.
holding that when agreement is reasonably susceptible to more than one construction issue is properly submitted to jury for resolution as a matter of fact holding that factual issues essential to determining whether state law bar applied should be submitted to a jury holding that the constitutional guarantee of a right to trial by jury includes the right to a complete and correct charge of the law so that each issue of fact raised by the evidence will be submitted to the jury on proper instructions holding that defense of fraud was waived where no special issue was submitted and there was disputed evidence holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury