Tag Archives: Homeowner

Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC, v. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.; Steve Pawlak; Daniel Hardin; and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd., 2013COA119 (August 1, 2013)

Soils swelled, cracking substructure; single-asset subsidiary sues. Residential homebuilders owe an independent duty to homeowners to build a home with reasonable care. In this CAR 4.2 interlocutory appeal, Defendant homebuilders argued that the economic loss rule should prevent a corporate subsidiary of a bank from bringing tort claims that a natural-person homeowner could bring. Rejecting each of Defendants’ arguments, the court of appeals held that the independent duty owed by homebuilders announced in Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041(Colo. 1983) also prevents the economic loss rule from barring a corporate-plaintiff’s construction defect claims. A homebuilder’s duty of care is owed to any subsequent owner of a house because the duty arises from the residential nature of the project, not the nature of the homeowner (corporate or otherwise).

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/13CA0519-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9049&courtid=1

 

2 Comments

Filed under Contracts, Corporations, Interlocutory Review, Torts

Kyle Larson Enterprises Inc., Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Co. 2012COA160 (September 27, 2012)

Repair vendors such as roofers, who are entitled to insurance payments for work done on behalf of an insured party like a homeowner, can sue the insurance company as if they were the homeowner, for unreasonable delay or denials of payment. In this case, homeowners contracted with a roofer to make repairs. The homeowners’ insurer approved initial repairs and costs, but the roofer later made additional repairs that were necessary to comply with building codes and maintain manufacturer warranties.  The insurance company refused to pay for the additional repairs. Roofer sued as a first-party claimant under C.R.S. 10-3-1115 claiming an improper denial of claims. The trial court dismissed that claim. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the insurance company’s involvement with roofer’s repairs, completed “on behalf of” the homeowners, made the roofer a first-party claimant.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2205-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8677&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Insurance

Kyle Larson Enterprises Inc., Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Co. 2012COA160 (September 27, 2012)

Repair vendors such as roofers, who are entitled to insurance payments for work done on behalf of an insured party like a homeowner, can sue the insurance company as if they were the homeowner, for unreasonable delay or denials of payment. In this case, homeowners contracted with a roofer to make repairs. The homeowners’ insurer approved initial repairs and costs, but the roofer later made additional repairs that were necessary to comply with building codes and maintain manufacturer warranties. The insurance company refused to pay for the additional repairs. Roofer sued as a first-party claimant under C.R.S. 10-3-1115 claiming an improper denial of claims. The trial court dismissed that claim. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the insurance company’s involvement with roofer’s repairs, completed “on behalf of” the homeowners, made the roofer a first-party claimant.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA2205-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8677&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Insurance

National Farmers Union Property and Casualty Company v. Garfinkel, et. al. 2012COA46 (March 15, 2012)

With wildfires burning, this Homeowner’s Insurance coverage case is timely. The Insurer brought a coverage action disclaiming liability under a Homeowner’s policy for a wildfire started on property owned by a LLC operated by the homeowners. The trial granted summary judgment for the insureds, holding 2 exclusions did not apply, and coverage existed. The court of appeals disagreed in part. First, under the “Business Pursuits” exclusion, it held the test is 1) continuity or regularity of the activity, and 2) profit motive. Applying that test, the court reversed. Leasing a farm to homeowners may be a “business pursuit,” but is a question of fact requiring a trial. Second, the policy excluded uninsured property “owned” but not “controlled” by the insured. But it applies only where the insured is the title owner. Here title was in the LLC, so the exclusion did not apply to the homeowners.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/11CA0230-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8442&courtid=1

1 Comment

Filed under Insurance