The information contained in this blog is provided for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any subject matter
Rocky Mountain Festivals, Inc. v. Parsons Corporation (Colo. Nov. 8, 2010).
Today, the Supreme Court cleared the way for a property owner to pursue claims against a town's consulting engineer for issuing a faulty report that resulted in the owner having to litigate with the town regarding over assessment of tap fees.
Hamon Contractors, Inc., v. Carter & Burgess, Inc. (Colo. App. 2009)
In this April 30, 2009, opinion, the Court of Appeals rejects the position that alleging fraud is enough to avoid application of the economic loss rule. Instead, the Court holds that the economic loss rule bars even a claim for alleged fraud where the acts complained of took place during a party's performance of its contractual duties. This holding is consistent with BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004) (holding that the economic loss rule bars misrepresentation claim by subcontractor against design professional, where alleged misrepresentation took place during the performance of the work). The Court also holds that alleging that fraud took place before the contracts were entered into may not be sufficient to avoid dismissal, since a duty might not exist as a matter of law.
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.
