type of contract contemplated by the statute and, further, whether his disability benefits were paid as a result of this contract. The context within which the legislature enacted the statute is instructive in ascertaining the statute’s intended scope and in determining whether the exception clause covers Keelan’s employment contract. The General Assembly enacted section 13 — 21— 111.6 as part of a sweeping array of tort reform legislation designed to limit the amounts that plaintiffs can recover in civil actions. For example, in the same year that it enacted the collateral source statute, the legislature amended an existing statute to limit exemplary damage recoveries. Ch. 106, sec. 1, § 13-21-102, 1986 Colo.Sess. Laws 675, 675-76. See Lira v. Davis, 832 P.2d 240, 245-46 (Colo.1992) (<HOLDING>). It also limited the liability of persons who
holding a court may not award punitive damages recognizing that the bill of attainder prohibits punitive legislation recognizing that as part of the sweeping tortreform legislation of 1986 the legislatures purpose in amending section 1321102 was to limit excessive punitive damages awards recognizing the importance of historical analysis in determining whether legislation is punitive holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable