Core-Mark v. Sonitrol Corp. 2012COA120 (July 19, 2012)

A massive fire started by a burglar burns down a warehouse. The burglar alarm system failed. The owner and its insurers sue the security company. The trial court dismissed all claims and plaintiff appealed to the court of appeals; the contract claims survive but the court finds that a limitation of liability provision did not limit a willful and wanton breach of contract. The security company loses at trial and brought this second appeal, challenging the prior appellate decision, the exclusion of its experts, and the refusal to designate the burglar as a nonparty at fault. Here, the court addressed and confirmed its prior decision notwithstanding the “law of the case,” but reversed for a new damages trial. The exclusion of the experts was not harmless because their testimony was central to damages. But, the nonparty at fault statute only applies to torts, not contract claims.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/10CA2289%20&%2011CA0369-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8600&courtid=1

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Contracts

One response to “Core-Mark v. Sonitrol Corp. 2012COA120 (July 19, 2012)

  1. Pingback: New Certiorari Grant plus a near-grant | Colorado Litigation Report ™

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s