by the CGIA. As we have made clear, the form of the complaint is not determinative of the claim’s basis in tort or contract. Id.; City & County of Denver v. Desert Truck Sales, Inc., 837 P.2d 759, 764 (Colo.1992). Instead, a court must consider the nature of the injury and the relief sought. See Conners, 993 P.2d at 1175-76; Adams v. City of Westminster, 140 P.3d 8, 11 (Colo.App.2005); CAMAS Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 36 P.3d 135, 138 (Colo.App.2001). When the injury arises either out of conduct that is tortious in nature or out of the breach of a duty recognized in tort law, and when the relief seeks to compensate the plaintiff for that injury, the claim likely lies in tort or could he in tort for purposes of the CGIA. See Conners, 993 P.2d at 1176; Adams, 140 P.3d at 10 (<HOLDING>); CAMAS Colo., 36 P.3d at 138 (noting that a
holding that the cgia was intended to apply when the claimant seeks redress from injuries that result from tortious conduct holding that liability insurance covered the injuries sustained when claimant exited car and was struck by a live wire since the claimant was still occupying the vehicle holding that where policies exclude coverage for injuries that are intended or expected the exclusion is applicable if the insured acts with the intent or expectation that bodily injury will result even though the bodily injury that does result is different either in character or magnitude from the injury that was intended holding article 1802 claims only survive where the conduct alleged of is based on tortious or negligent conduct different from the conduct covered by other specific labor laws involved holding that the standard policy exclusion of injuries expected or intended by the insured refers only to bodily injury that the insured in fact subjectively wanted intended to be a result of his conduct or in fact subjectively foresaw as practically certain expected to be a result of his conduct