Trouble with images? View as a Web page.

Facebook Twitter More...
Polsinelli Shughart Construction Litigation in the News
Construction Litigation Attorneys

Roy Bash
Practice Area Chair

G. Edgar James
Practice Area Vice Chair

Heath M. Anderson
Catherine R. Bell
William D. Blakely
Kevin J. Breer
Eugene R. Commander
Andrew M. DeMarea
Wayne B. Ducharme
Robert O. Dyer
Heber O. Gonzalez
Matthew R. Hale
Thomas P. Hohenstein
David Peter Hughes
Ryan M. Manies
William R. Meyer
Christopher J. Mohart
Greg L. Musil
Brett C. Randol
Jeffrey B. Rosen
Rebecca A. Ross
Timothy J. Sear
Craig A. Smith
Christopher P. Sobba
Holly A. Streeter-Schaefer
Michael D. Textor
Ryan E. Warren
Justin R. Watkins

 

 

To learn more about
our Construction Law
practice, click here.

 

 

 

 

October 2012

 

Arbitration of Construction Defect Claims Against Developer and General Contractor

 

Denver District Court orders arbitration of construction defect claims in Glass House Residential Association v. Alta Riverfront LLC et al, no. 2012CV1531.

The Glass House ruling provides direction for developers and general contractors to choose a preferred method of dispute resolution for construction defect claims. The Denver District Courts recently upheld mandatory arbitration in a construction defect lawsuit.

Construction defect litigation has evolved into a mature practice area in Colorado, with several law firms focusing their practice on suing developers and general contractors on behalf of the condominium homeowners associations. Such lawsuits tend to be expensive, involving multiple parties and numerous expert witnesses; and the expense of litigation alone often motivates parties to settle. Frequently, one of the goals of plaintiff's law firms who represent homeowners associations is to ensure that their cases end up in court, rather than in a potentially more streamlined and less expensive dispute resolution procedure like arbitration.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Developers may choose to include alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures in the initial condominium declarations. Once control of the homeowners association passes to a board of directors elected by unit owners, some associations have avoided ADR provisions by amending the declarations or bylaws to eliminate the ADR provisions. Subsequent construction defect litigation is then filed in court. In Eagle Ridge Condominium Ass'n v. Metropolitan, Builders, Inc., 98 P.3d 915, 919 (Colo. App. 2004), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that an amendment removing a mandatory arbitration provision from the condominium declarations was valid because (1) the bylaws were amended before the case was filed, (2) the homeowners association had the power to amend the bylaws, and (3) there were no restrictions on the homeowners association's ability to amend the mandatory arbitration provision for construction defect claims.

The Court's Decision in Glass House

The Denver District Court recently upheld mandatory arbitration in a construction defect lawsuit by ruling that a developer and general contractor had successfully and permissibly restricted the homeowners association from subsequent amendments to the condominium's declarations and bylaws to remove the arbitration requirement. In Glass House Residential Association v. Alta Riverfront LLC et al, no. 2012CV1531, the developer included mandatory arbitration provisions for construction defect claims in the initial condominium declarations. Additionally, the mandatory arbitration provisions stated that it could not be repealed or modified without the consent of the developer and the general contractor – two parties that are typically sued in construction defect cases. As usual, the homeowners association voted to amend the declarations to remove the mandatory arbitration provision before it filed the construction defect lawsuit. The developer and general contractor moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the homeowners association's amendment was ineffective because it was done without their consent.

In its October 2, 2012 order, the district court agreed with the developer and general contractor, and referred the matter for arbitration. The district court distinguished Eagle Ridge because the ADR provision in Glass House declaration contained a restriction requiring the developer's and general contractor's consent.

Importantly, the district court ruled that this restriction did not violate any provision of the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA). CCIOA is a detailed statute governing the creation and governance of condominiums, and contains several provisions that limit the control a developer can exert over condominium governance. For example, CCIOA requires developers to eventually turn over control of the homeowners association to the unit owners, and prohibits certain restrictions on the homeowners association's ability to amend the condominium declarations. However, CCIOA also encourages dispute resolution through arbitration rather than litigation. Because CCIOA contains no express prohibition on a developers' ability to forbid the repeal of a mandatory arbitration provision, the district court in Glass House enforced the arbitration requirement over the homeowners association's objections.

The developer in Glass House did not overreach by trying to impose any substantive limitations on the homeowners association's ability to sue for construction defects. It just required construction defect claims to be arbitrated and prevented the homeowners association from repealing the arbitration requirement without the developer's consent. Any attempt by a developer to go further and lock in substantive limitations on construction defect claims, like eliminating them or restricting recoverable damages, might not fare as well.

For More Information

If you have any questions regarding the Glass House Arbitration ruling, please contact Roy Bash at rbash@polsinelli.com or Ben Cohen at bcohen@polsinelli.com, or by calling 303.572.9300.

 

  To learn more about our RSS feeds, click here. Click here to learn more about our RSS feeds. Click here to learn more about our RSS feeds.

Polsinelli Shughart | In the News

Headlines and Bylines from polsinelli.com


 

Colorado Governor Appoints Polsinelli Shughart Attorney Darren Hensley to Securities Board

Kansas City's Best of the Bar 2012

Polsinelli Shughart Attorney Installed as President of the Korean Bar Association of Chicago

 

Get more news from polsinelli.com.

   

 

ABOUT POLSINELLI SHUGHART:

    Facebook
Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on Twitter. Connect with us on LinkedIn.

With more than 600 attorneys, Polsinelli Shughart is a national law firm and a recognized leader in the areas of health care, financial services, real estate, life sciences and technology, energy and business litigation. Serving corporate, institutional and individual clients, our attorneys build enduring relationships by providing practical, business-driven legal advice with a commitment to helping clients achieve their objectives. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli Shughart PC. In California, Polsinelli Shughart LLP.

 
Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Edwardsville, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York Overland Park, Phoenix, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Springfield, Topeka, Washington, D.C., Wilmington DE Redefining the business of law.  SM
 

To update your email preferences, please contact us at Interaction@polsinelli.com. To opt out of these communications, click the unsubscribe link below.

Polsinelli Shughart provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Nothing herein should be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances, possible changes to applicable laws, rules and regulations and other legal issues. Receipt of this material does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

Polsinelli Shughart is very proud of the results we obtain for our clients, but you should know that past results do not guarantee future results; that every case is different and must be judged on its own merits; and that the choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

Polsinelli Shughart PC. In California, Polsinelli Shughart LLP.

Polsinelli Shughart® is a registered trademark of Polsinelli Shughart PC.

Copyright © 2012 Polsinelli Shughart PC ®.

 
           
Polsinelli Shughart Polsinelli Shughart Polsinelli Shughart