Construction Law in Colorado

Colorado Court of Appeals Addresses "Actual Damages" Under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act

In Hildebrand v. New Visa Homes II, LLC (Colo. App. Nov. 11, 2010), a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals addressed, among other things, what the proper measure of damages is for a construction defects claim under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act ("CDARA").  In doing so, the Court of Appeals clarified that the plaintiffs need not present alternative methods of computation of damages.  Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that "inconvenience damages" were recoverable under CDARA.  Finally, the Court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest for its damages based on cost to repair.

Fire Itself Triggers Statute Of Limitations, Not Discovery Of Cause

United Fire Group v. Powers Electric, Inc. (Colo. App. 2010)

Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals, construing the statute of limitations for claims against construction professionals (C.R.S. 13-80-104), held that the statute of limitations for a claim against an electrician who performed faulty work that resulted in a fire began to run from the date of the fire, not from when the cause of the fire was determined.

Repairs Won't Toll The Statute Of Limitations

Smith v. Executive Custom Homes (Colo. 2010)

Reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals, the Colorado Supreme Court holds that the repair doctrine, which is an equitable tolling doctrine, is inconsistent with the Construction Defect Action Reform Act ("CDARA").  As such, ongoing repairs or attempts to repair by a contractor of a construction defect do not equitably toll the statute of limitations.

Contractor only required to repair, not replace, defective windows

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.

Indemnification statute of limitations does not apply to claims by developer against subcontractors for recovery of costs incurred in performing warranty work

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.

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."

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 Explains Differences Between Tort And Contract Recovery In Construction Defects Cases

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.

CGL Policy Covered Claim By Subsequent Purchaser Of Home

Hoang v. Assurance Co. of America (Colo. 2007) and Travelers v. Village Homes (Colo. 2007)

The Supreme Court holds that the proceeds of a CGL insurance policy are available to satisfy the judgment of a subsequent purchaser of damaged property against the homebuilder when (1) the builder insured itself against liability for damage occurring during the policy period, (2) the damage to the property occurred during the policy period, (3) no exclusion to the policy rendered the insured’s policy coverage inapplicable because of a change in the property’s ownership, and (4) the builder was liable for the damage to the property. The Court also applies this holding in Travelers, decided the same day.

Read slip opinion

90-Day Statute Of Limitations Not Applicable To Subrogation Claim

Fire Insurance Exchange v. Monty's Heating (Colo. App. 2007)

After a homeowner's home burnt down, plaintiff insurance company paid the homeowner under the homeowner’s policy. Plaintiff then brought a subrogation claims against the contractors, alleging faulty HVAC work.

The trial court entered summary judgment dismissing the claims based on the 90-day statute of limitations in C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 90-day statute of limitations for indemnification and similar claims applied to claims by the defendants of construction-defects cases, not the plaintiffs.

Read slip opinion