Construction Law in Colorado

Plaintiff does not have to plead or prove compliance with CDARA

Land-Wells v. Rain Way Sprinkler and Landscape, LLC (Colo. App. 2008)

Within the context of a personal injury action, the Colorado Court of Appeals holds that the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) does not require the plaintiff to plead or prove compliance with the notice process of CDARA, or that the alleged injuries or damages arose from a "construction defect."

Colorado adopts the "active interference" exception to no-damages-for-delay clauses

Tricon Kent Co. v. Lafarge North America, Inc. (Colo. App. 2008)

The Colorado Court of Appeals holds that no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforceable in Colorado, but that the "active interference" doctrine is a recognized exception to the enforceability of such clauses.

Owner's Claim Asserting Faulty Construction Insufficient To Trigger Subcontractor's Duty To Indemnify General

Boulder Plaza Residential, LLC v. Summit Flooring, LLC (Colo. App. 2008)

The Colorado Court of Appeals holds that an owner's claim of alleged defective workmanship is not sufficient, under the particular subcontract at issue, to trigger the subcontractor's duty to indemnify the general.  Instead, the subcontractor only has to indemnify the general contractor if there is damage caused by the subcontractor's actual negligent acts, breach of contract, or intentional torts.

Court Of Appeals Gives Lengthy Analysis Of Changed-Conditions Claims

URS Group, Inc. v. Tetra Tech FW, Inc. (Colo. App. 2008)

The Colorado Court of Appeals addresses in detail the elements of, and defenses against, a Type-I differing site conditions claim.