Share this e-Alert:

Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation
         

  

July 2016

  

Colorado Supreme Court to Rule on Yet Another Key Construction Defects Issue

  

  

  

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

For more information about this alert, please contact:

  

Amy K. Hansen

303.583.8226

Email | Bio

  

Richard M. Murray

303.583.8242

Email | Bio

  

Ryan E. Warren

303.583.8238

Email | Bio

  

To learn more about our Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation practice, to contact one of our attorneys, or for more Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Intelligence, click here.

  


Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation Polsinelli - Construction, Energy and Real Estate Litigation View Polsinelli documents on JD Supra  
LinkedIn Twitter Facebook Polsinelli Podcast Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook. Connect with us on LinkedIn. Connection with us on Twitter. Connect with us on Facebook.

SUBSCRIBE

   

 On July 5, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court announced it will consider the construction defects case of Forest City Stapleton, Inc., et al. v. Rogers.   In this case the Colorado Court of Appeals, for the first time, imposed an implied warranty of "suitability" for new home construction in certain instances.  The Colorado appellate court held that a master developer may be liable to a subsequent home purchaser under a so-called implied warranty of suitability.  The decision is regarded as a step backward in construction defect reform progress.  This opinion seemingly expands the potential scope of liability to developers and contractors.  This comes at a time when condominium construction in the Denver metro area has all but disappeared under the pressure of exposure to construction defect litigation.  The Supreme Court's decision to review the Rogers case is an opportunity for a change in course on this key issue in the industry.

The Supreme Court will take on the following issues:

  1. Whether an implied warranty (meaning a warranty that springs into existence automatically, even though it is not contained in a contract) of "suitability" can exist between a developer and ultimate purchaser of the home, when the developer sold the  vacant lot to a builder who in turn builds the dwelling and sells to the homeowner
  2. Whether privity of contract (meaning a direct contractual relation) is required before a purchaser of a home can sue a developer for breach of the implied warranty of suitability

The Court's announcement comes just two weeks after it agreed to hear another high profile construction defects case, Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., which concerns whether Colorado's Common Interest Ownership Act ("CCIOA") permits a developer to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend HOA declarations.  These two cases present opportunities for the Colorado Supreme Court to resolve two important construction defect reform issues.

The Supreme Court will review the Court of Appeals decision that an implied warranty of "suitability" exists between a developer of a vacant lot and an owner of a home on that lot who is not the first purchaser.  The Court of Appeals, extrapolating on prior Colorado case law and authority from other states, held that the implied warranty of suitability does exist, even if the owner is not the first purchaser, if two conditions are met: (1) the developer improved the lot for a particular purpose; and (2) all subsequent purchasers relied on the developer's skill or expertise in improving the lot for that purpose.

For More Information

For more information on this topic or to discuss the potential impact to your business, please contact the authors or your Polsinelli attorney.

  

 
 

  

     

  

 

 

  

     

  

 
 

Atlanta  Boston  Chattanooga  Chicago  Dallas  Denver  Houston  Kansas City  Los Angeles  Nashville  New York
Overland Park  Phoenix  Raleigh  St. Joseph  St. Louis  San Francisco  Washington, D.C.  Wilmington
polsinelli.com

 
             
 

  

ABOUT POLSINELLI

real challenges. real answers.SM  
Polsinelli is an Am Law 100 firm with more than 800 attorneys in 19 offices, serving corporations, institutions, and entrepreneurs nationally. Ranked in the top five percent of law firms for client service*, the firm has risen more than 50 spots over the past five years in the Am Law 100 annual law firm ranking. Polsinelli attorneys provide practical legal counsel infused with business insight, and focus on health care, financial services, real estate, intellectual property, mid-market corporate, and business litigation. Polsinelli attorneys have depth of experience in 100 service areas and 70 industries. The firm can be found online at www.polsinelli.com. Polsinelli PC. In California, Polsinelli LLP.

* 2016 BTI Client Service A-Team Report

  

 
 

  

     

  

 
 

Polsinelli provides this material for informational purposes only. The material provided herein is general and is not intended to be legal advice. Polsinelli 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.

Copyright © 2016 Polsinelli PC.

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