Smith v. Executive Custom Homes (Colo. App. 2009)
In this construction defects case, the plaintiff admittedly filed the complaint beyond the statute-of-limitations period. But the plaintiff argued that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled under the repair doctrine. The trial court disagreed, and granted summary judgment for the developer. The Court of Appeals reversed.
Continue reading "Silence by Developer in Response to Demand to Repair Might Be Enough to Toll Statute of Limitations" »
Ranta Construction, Inc. v. Anderson (Colo. App. 2008)
In a 34-page opinion regarding defective windows, the Court of Appeals explains at length why the homeowners' refusal to allow the contractor and window vendor to repair admittedly-defective windows justifies the trial court's judgment against the homeowner.
Continue reading "Contractor only required to repair, not replace, defective windows" »
Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc. v. Steel Floors, LLC, et al. (Colo. App. 2008)
In a construction defects lawsuit, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling that Richmond's claims against its subcontractors were time barred to the extent they involved repairs to homes made more than 90 days before the complaint was filed.
Continue reading "Indemnification statute of limitations does not apply to claims by developer against subcontractors for recovery of costs incurred in performing warranty work" »
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."
Continue reading "Plaintiff does not have to plead or prove compliance with CDARA" »
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.
Continue reading "Owner's Claim Asserting Faulty Construction Insufficient To Trigger Subcontractor's Duty To Indemnify General" »
Andrews v. Picard (Colo. App. 2007)
The Colorado Court of Appeals reaffirmed that homebuilders owe an independent duty of care in tort to purchasers, and reversed the trial court's directed verdict dismissing the plaintiff's negligence claim. Although this holding does not change the law, the case is interesting in that the plaintiff received a judgment against the defendants on her breach of contract claim, and the Court still remanded the case to allow the plaintiff to pursue her tort claim. This demonstrates some of the differences between tort and contract recovery.
Continue reading "Court Explains Differences Between Tort And Contract Recovery In Construction Defects Cases" »
Park Rise HOA v. Resource Construction (Colo. App. 2006)
The Colorado Court of Appeals addresses many construction-related issues in this case, including the following:
(1) The trial court ruled that the economic loss rule bars an HOA's negligence claims for construction defects against the general contractor. The Court of Appeals reversed based on previous cases limiting the application of the economic loss rule in residential construction defects cases.
Continue reading "Homebuilders Allowed To “Puff” Without Facing CCPA Liability" »