involving adjudicative facts are subject to basic due process guarantees.... ‘This embodies adequate advance notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to state action resulting in deprivation of a significant property interest.’ City and County of Denver v. Eggert, supra, 647 P.2d at 223-24. Here, no license or permit decisions are involved, no private parties are involved, no statute required notice or a hearing, and the CCIA was not deprived of a significant property interest. We thus conclude that Eggert is inapposite. Alternatively, the CCIA contends that when it acts in its corporate capacity, it enjoys the same standing and procedural due process protection as any other insurance corporation. See Dye Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission, 678 P.2d 1066 (Colo.App.1983) (<HOLDING>); Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc., 297
holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors recognizing the ccias corporate essence holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract