Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Scholarships Available for the 2018 CLM Claims College – School of Construction


I am happy to have been asked to serve as an Executive Council member and instructor at this year's CLM Claims College – School of Construction, to be held at the Marriott Baltimore Waterfront in Baltimore, Maryland on Wednesday, September 5, 2018 through Saturday, September 8, 2018.

Overview of the 2018 School of Construction

Construction claims present  myriad complexities in claim handling. Construction defect lawsuits are often multi-party cases with cross claims and third-party claims between and among the numerous defendants. Insurance coverage is intertwined and complex due to the interplay of primary, excess, wrap, and additional insurers for the numerous defendants. All this is further complicated by statutes and regulations, inconsistent case law and procedural peculiarities throughout the United States. The economic stakes are high as the  damages claims can be in the multi-millions.

Competent construction claims handling requires an understanding of the distinct legal and practical  issues between commercial and residential claims. This is no place for the average adjuster and certainly no place for the adjuster who has not been properly trained.

The School of Construction will provide adjusters with the knowledge, tools, and understanding required to navigate these complex claims. Professionals seeking to expand their knowledge of construction risk concepts and seasoned professionals looking to move into construction claims are encouraged to attend.

Upon satisfactory completion of all three levels, graduates will receive the Certified Claims Professional (CCP) in Construction designation.

About the Claims and Litigation Management Alliance

The Claims and Litigation Management (CLM) Alliance is the only national organization created to meet the needs of professionals in the claims and litigation management industries. Founded in 2007, the CLM currently has more than 30,000 Members and Fellows — a number that grows by hundreds each month.

Scholarships Available

As an EC and instructor, I have the ability to offer three scholarships (registration fee only) to industry professionals (insurance - risk, adjusters, claims, etc. and corporate) to attend Claims College.  In order to attend, you need not to be a current CLM Fellow – however you will need to register (at no cost) to receive the scholarship. If you are interested in attending, please let me know by May 8th so that I can put you in touch with the proper person at the CLM to register.  I look forward to the event and hope that there are folks out there interested in taking advantage of the scholarships.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

The Curious Case of the Three Year Statute of Limitations for Construction Earth Movers


On March 6, 2018, Judge Edward Moss of Adams County issued a noteworthy, if bizarre, order concluding that construction excavators and earthmovers are uniquely subject to a three year statute of limitations. By way of background, in Colorado, per C.R.S. § 13-80-104, those furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property (“Construction Professionals”) are subject to the two year statute of limitations as set forth in C.R.S. § 13-80-102.

However, it appears that things are not so simple in Adams County. In the case, Paul Heap, et al. v. Asphalt Specialties Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2017CV30842 (Adams County, Mar. 6, 2018), the Court was presented with the following undisputed timeline: the Defendants began excavation related work and erosion control and flood mitigation on the construction project in March 2015; alleged defects with the Defendants’ work manifested on May 1, 2015, and; Plaintiffs filed their Complaint May 29, 2017. Based on a straightforward reading of the two-year statute limitations, the Plaintiffs’ claims should have been time barred.

However, the Plaintiffs, in their Response to the Summary Judgment Based on the Statute of Limitations, raised the argument that because the Defendants’ work included “the intentional use of excavators, earthmovers, trucks, and other motor vehicles to excavate, remove and relocate dirt,” the Plaintiffs’ claims should be evaluated under the three-year statute of limitations for “[a]ll tort actions for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle” as set forth in C.R.S. § 13-80-101.

As surprising as it may seem, the Court agreed with the Plaintiffs’ argument, remarking as follows: “[c]learly, there is some casual connection between the use of excavators, earthmovers, [and] trucks. . . to excavate, remove and relocate dirt.” Because the Court found that C.R.S. § 13-80-101 and C.R.S. § 13-80-102 were in conflict in the context of the facts before the Court, the Court applied the legal standards for conflicting statutes of limitations. Applying the legal standards for conflicting statutes of limitations, the Court concluded that three-year state of limitations prevailed and thus the Plaintiffs’ claims were timely.

Going forward, careful practitioners should be aware of and consider the nuance in Colorado’s statute of limitations now potentially applicable to earth mover Construction Professionals. For additional information regarding Colorado’s statute of limitations for Construction Professionals or about construction defect litigation in Colorado, generally, you can reach Jean Meyer by telephone at (303) 987-9815 or by e-mail at meyer@hhmrlaw.com.

Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Dave McLain to Speak at the MBA's Condominium Lending Workshop 2018



I am honored to have been invited to speak at the Mortgage Bankers Association Condominium Lending Workshop 2018.  I will be participating as a panelist on the Condo Defect Panel: The CO Perspective, along with Nate Santillanes, CRIS, Director - Risk Management, CoBiz Insurance and moderated by Katie Fritch, Bank Officer - UW Support Manager, Flagstar Bank.

Come learn what's new in condo lending.


Back by Popular Demand...

MBA's Condominium Lending Workshop is back!  We heard you loud and clean and are pleased to once again offer our one-day workshop on this specialized area of lending.  This workshop brings together strategic leaders of condo lending as well as project approval managers, with other experts, including government agency and GSE leadership.  Through panel presentations and interactive discussions, our expert speakers will cover the following topics:
  • Update from FHA
  • GSE and Lender Perspectives on Project Approvals
  • Overview of Condo Markets
  • Condo Litigation Challenges
  • Flood and other Insurance Issues
  • Lending on New Construction Condos

This is a unique opportunity to come together with others that specialize in condo lending to get the latest updates and discuss challenges and opportunities in an interactive setting.  The majority of the workshop agenda takes place on April 11th, kicking off with an evening networking reception on April 10th.

Register Now



Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The next evolution in Colorado construction defect litigation? Single-family home builders could be in the crosshairs.

I recently had the opportunity to write an article for Colorado Builder Magazine, a snippet of which appears here.
Since the 1990's, construction defect litigation has focused on condominiums and townhomes. By representing homeowner associations instead of individual owners, plaintiffs' attorneys can more easily aggregate claims, thereby increasing exponentially the claimed damages.
*     *     *
In a new twist, the Latitude at Vista Ridge Homeowners Association in Erie filed a construction defect lawsuit claiming damages for construction defects in the single-family homes owned by its members.  This is the first instance, of which I am aware, in which an association has sued for alleged defects in single-family homes.
For additional information regarding the Latitude at Vista Ridge lawsuit or the disturbing new trend in Colorado construction defect litigation, you can visit the Colorado Builder website and view the entire article here.  You can also reach me by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com or by phone at (303) 987-9813.


Monday, December 18, 2017

Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court reaffirms that there is no duty to defend or indemnify a builder for defective construction work

In a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017).

Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”).  MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence.  E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes.  E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities.   MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity.  In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property.

MCS and E-8 subsequently settled all of E-8’s claims against MCS.  As part of the settlement terms, however, MCS assigned all of its rights against AIC to E-8 related to AIC’s refusal to defend and indemnify MCS.  In the ensuing action by E-8 against AIC, AIC moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim.  In doing so, AIC argued that the relevant Policy language prevented it from defending or indemnifying MCS for the allegations contained in E-8’s operative complaint against MCS in the underlying action.

In holding that AIC did not owe MCS any duty to defend it for E-8’s claims, Judge Richard Matsch first delved into the relevant language of the Policy.  Indeed, the Policy provided in pertinent part that AIC would cover and pay sums to MCS for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to property which the Policy covered.  The Policy, however, defined property damage as follows:

a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.  All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it; or

b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.  All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the ‘occurrence’ that caused it.

Construing the foregoing language, the Judge Matsch held that AIC did not have a duty to defend MCS against E-8’s claims because E-8 did not allege “physical injury to tangible property,” or “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.”  Rather, E-8’s allegations against MCS made clear that its grievance stemmed from a defectively built house.  What is more, E-8 never implied in its complaint that the flawed workmanship “caused the loss of use of some other tangible property that was not physically injured.”  The court also stressed that the Policy’s exclusionary language that prohibited coverage for faulty workmanship, effectively put an end to any duty on AIC’s part to defend or indemnify MCS for any defect, deficiency, or inadequacy germane to MSC’s work on the project.

Having been precluded from coverage based on the Policy language, E-8 then argued that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 effectively mandated a duty to defend on AIC’s part since the duty is triggered where there is a “potentially covered liability” against a “construction professional concerning a construction defect.”  Even so, the court noted that the duty to defend under the statute is still subject to the express terms of the Policy language between an insurer and its insured, and the duty is not triggered where the claims at issue are not covered by the insurance policy.  For the foregoing reasons, the court held that AIC had no duty to defend or indemnify MCS pursuant to the Policy.  Accordingly, the court entered summary judgment in AIC’s favor and dismissed all of E-8’s counterclaims against AIC.

In application, the ruling reaffirms the well-established principle that the express terms of a policy will continue to be the benchmark with which courts determine an insurer’s duty to provide coverage, in the absence of any contravention of public policy.  Further, policy language that expressly discounts coverage for a contractor’s substandard work on a project, absent injury to person or other property, remain enforceable provisions.  The public policy underlying this appears to be the need to discourage shoddy workmanship and to provide contractors the incentive to avoid preventable defective work during the construction of a project.   


For more information about the Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC case or about construction law in Colorado, you can reach Olayinka Hamza by e-mail at hamza@hhmrlaw.com or by telephone at (720) 630-2709.

Monday, October 16, 2017

Recent Changes in the Law Affecting Construction Defect Litigation


At Long Last, the Colorado Legislature Passed Construction Defect Reform
By David M. McLain
On May 23, 2017, Governor Hickenlooper signed HB17-1279 into law.  The bill states that before an HOA’s executive board can institute a construction defect action, it must provide notice of the anticipated commencement of the action to each of the HOA’s unit owners, along with certain disclosures about the anticipated action.  The bill also requires that the HOA executive committee convene a meeting of the unit owners to consider the action, and that the construction professionals against which the claim is being brought have the opportunity to address the members of the HOA.  The bill also states that the HOA executive committee may only initiate a construction defect action if it is approved by “owners of units to which a majority of votes in the association are allocated.” 
While this sounds good, the bill goes on to state that for purposes of calculating the required majority vote, the following votes are excluded:
  1. Any votes allocated to units owned by a contractor, subcontractor, developer, or builder responsible for any part of the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the common interest community, or any affiliate of such a party, including any entity controlled or owned, in whole or in part, by any person that controls or owns the company, or by the spouse of such a person.
  2. Any votes allocated to units owned by banking institutions, unless a vote from such an institution is actually received by the association.
  3. Any votes allocated to units of a product type in which no defects are alleged, in a common interest community whose declaration provides that common expense liabilities are not shared between the product types.
  4. Any votes allocated to units owned by owners who are deemed “nonresponsive”.
The problem with this is that the exclusions render the informed consent meaningless.  Prior to HB17-1279, a declaration could provide that in order for an association to have standing to sue for construction defects, it had to obtain the informed consent of up to 67% of the owners within the community, with no exclusions.  For example, in a common interest community of 100 units, the association would need to obtain the affirmative vote of 67 of the units owners within the community, regardless of ownership, in order to proceed with a construction defect action.  That is no longer the case under HB17-1279.
Under HB17-1279, the HOA’s executive committee needs only the approval of a simple majority of responsive owners in order to proceed with an action.  Two years ago, a plaintiffs’ construction defect attorney that also sits on the executive committee for his HOA testified at the Colorado legislature that even on uncontested issues, it is rare for his HOA to receive a response rate above 20% of the total membership.  Assuming that response rate is reflective of most associations, under the same example above and under HB17-1279, if an HOA were to send out 100 ballots seeking approval of a construction defect action and get back only 20 ballots, it could proceed with an action so long as 11 votes were in favor of an action.
That said, there remains some question among the legal community as to the effectiveness of a 67% supermajority clause in a declaration.  There are those among defense attorneys who questioned whether such clauses were ever enforceable, and there are no appellate cases upholding such clauses, so it is not as though the decision was made to trade 67% for a simple majority of responsive owners.  In fact, if the 67% supermajority clauses were not enforceable, a simple majority of responsive owners is still a higher threshold than the executive committee making the decision itself.  
Colorado Supreme Court Upholds “Consent-to-Amend” Provision in an HOA’s Declaration. A Step in the Right Direction.   
On June 5, the Colorado Supreme Court announced the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Con. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., No. 15SC508, 2017 CO 69 (Colo. June 5, 2017) decision.  By way of background, Metro Inverness, LLC developed the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums and served as the declarant for its homeowners association.  When it set up the Association, the Declarant included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specific to construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”

The HOA purportedly amended the declaration to remove the arbitration provision, without the Declarant’s consent, and filed a construction defect lawsuit in district court.  The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision for construction defect claims and arguing that the purported amendment to remove it was invalid because the unit owners did not obtain the Declarant’s consent for the amendment. The Association, in response, argued that the unit owners validly amended the declaration to remove the arbitration provision and that the declarant consent requirement violated the Colorado Common Interest Act (“CCIOA”).

Briefing and arguments on this issue made their way from the district court, through the Colorado Court of Appeals, and ultimately to the Colorado Supreme Court, which agreed to decide two issues:
  1. Did CCIOA permit a developer-declarant to retain a right of consent to amendments to a provision of a common interest community’s declaration mandating arbitration of construction defect claims.
  2. Were claims brought under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, §§ 6-1-101 to -1121, C.R.S. (2016) (“CCPA”) arbitrable.  In response to these questions, the Supreme Court made short work of the arguments advanced by the Association and concluded that CCIOA did not void the declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and that CCPA claims are arbitrable.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision is certainly a positive development for the Colorado construction community as it preserves the builder’s ability to enforce arbitration provisions in construction defect cases.  To protect your ability to arbitrate any construction defect claims brought against you by an association, be sure to include a declarant “consent-to-amend” provision in the association’s declaration. 


- Reprinted from Colorado Builder Forum (Summer 2017)

Monday, June 5, 2017

Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations

On June 5, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Con. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., No. 15SC508, 2017 CO 69 (Colo. June 5, 2017) decision. In short, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the validity of declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and expressly held that claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act are arbitrable.

By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, (“Declarant”) which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control.

When it set up the Association, the Declarant included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”

The HOA purportedly amended the declaration to remove the arbitration provision, without the Declarant’s consent and filed a construction defect lawsuit in district court.  The defendants moved to compel arbitration, relying on the arbitration provision for construction defect claims and arguing that the purported amendment to remove it was invalid because the unit owners did not obtain the Declarant’s consent for the amendment. The Association, in response, argued that the unit owners validly amended the declaration to remove the arbitration provision and that the declarant consent requirement violated the Colorado Common Interest Act (“CCIOA”).

The district court denied the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the Declarant’s consent was not required to remove the arbitration provision because, inter alia, the declarant consent requirement violated CCIOA and was, therefore, void and unenforceable. Specifically, the district court held that the declarant consent provision violated C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(2), which provides: “The declaration may not impose limitations on the power of the association to deal with the declarant that are more restrictive than the limitations imposed on the power of the association to deal with other persons.” The court also found that the declarant consent provision violated C.R.S. § 38-33.3-217(1)(a)(I), which states:

[T]he declaration . . . may be amended only by affirmative vote or agreement of unit owners to which more than fifty percent of the votes in the association are allocated or any larger percentage, not to exceed sixty-seven percent, that the declaration specifies. Any provision in the declaration that purports to specify a percentage larger than sixty-seven percent is hereby declared void as contrary to public policy, and until amended, such provision shall be deemed to specify a percentage of sixty-seven percent.
The Declarant then brought an interlocutory appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals and a division of that court reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condo. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., 2015 COA 65, ¶¶ 1, 72, __P.3d__.

Thereafter, the petitioner, Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. (the “Association”), petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in order to answer two chief questions: 1) did CCIOA permit a developer-declarant to retain a right of consent to amendments to a provision of a common interest community’s declaration mandating arbitration of construction defect claims, and; 2) were claims brought under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, §§ 6-1-101 to -1121, C.R.S. (2016) (“CCPA”) arbitrable. In response to these questions, the Supreme Court concluded that CCIOA did not void the declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and that CCPA claims are arbitrable.

Underlying its decision, the Supreme Court was unpersuaded by the Association’s three principle arguments that the “consent-to-amend” provision was violative of CCIOA. Specifically, the Association argued that the “consent-to-amend” provision was void for the following reasons: 1) the provision exceeded the 67% voting threshold established by C.R.S. § 38-33.3-217(1)(a)(I), for amending a declaration; 2) it was a device intended to evade the foregoing 67% limitation and thus is proscribed by C.R.S. § 38-33.3-104, and; 3) in violation of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(2), it imposed limitations on the power of the Association to deal with the Declarant that were more restrictive than the limitations imposed on the power of the Association to deal with other persons.

The Supreme Court ultimately made short work of the arguments advanced by the Association. First, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that nothing in CCIOA precluded a declaration from imposing additional requirements (i.e., non-percentage based requirements) for amendments. The Supreme Court illustrated this conclusion by evaluating other provisions of CCIOA that expressly contemplated such additional requirements.

Second, the Supreme Court was similarly unpersuaded with the Association’s second argument because it appeared to be premised on the Association’s first argument, that CCIOA establishes an absolute 67% voting limitation, and the Supreme Court concluded that the “consent-to-amend” provision did not contravene any of CCIOA’s policies or purposes. The Supreme Court supported the later conclusion by noting that CCIOA patently permits a declaration to “specify situations in which disputes shall be resolved by binding arbitration. . .” In this context, the Supreme Court concluded that it was unable to find that the “consent-to-amend” provision evaded the limitations of CCIOA.

In response to the Association’s third argument, with respect to C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(2), the Supreme Court recognized that the Association had no power to amend the declaration. Rather, the Supreme Court concluded that CCIOA provides that unit-owners, not the Association, have the power to amend the declaration by a 67% vote. Therefore, the “consent-to-amend” provision did not impose any limitation on “the power of the association” under C.R.S. § 38-33.3-302(2).

Lastly, turning to the Association’s argument that CCPA claims were not arbitrable, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by the Association’s proposition that the statutory right to file a civil action may not be waived pre-dispute. In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court noted that the CCPA contains no language expressly precluding a waiver of a “court action” found in the statutes that Association sought to analogize. Nor was the Supreme Court persuaded by the Association’s assertion that the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”) precluded a waiver of a plaintiff’s CCPA claims, given that CDARA expressly envisions the possibility of an arbitration proceeding involving CCPA claims. See C.R.S. § 13-20-806(7)(a).

For these reasons and others, the Supreme Court concluded that the “consent-to-amend” provision was enforceable and consistent with CCIOA and that claims for violations of the CCPA may be properly arbitrated. In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision is certainly a positive development for the Colorado construction community as it preserves the builder’s ability to enforce arbitration provisions in construction defect cases.


For additional information regarding Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes or about construction defect litigation in Colorado, generally, you can reach Jean Meyer by telephone at (303) 987-9815 or by e-mail at meyer@hhmrlaw.com.

Disclaimer

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.