Last
fall the Denver Regional Council of Governments approached the Colorado
Association of Home Builders to inquire as to why there are no builders
developing or constructing for-sale, multi-family projects along the newly
constructed light rail lines. By surveying its membership, the CAHB quickly learned
that the biggest impediment to such construction is Colorado’s litigation
environment, i.e., “if you build it,
they will sue.” This started a dialogue within the industry in order to
determine what changes developers and general contractors would like to see made
in order to consider again building for-sale, multi-family construction. The
result of this dialogue is Senate Bill 13-052, introduced on January 16, 2013,
and known as the Transit-Oriented Development Claims Act of 2013, sponsored by
Senators Scheffel and Cadman and Representative DelGrosso. You can find the
current iteration of SB 13-052 here. In short, the bill contains the following
components:
With respect to
construction defect actions involving transit-oriented development, the bill
makes the following changes to the law:
Section 1
creates the “Transit-oriented Development Claims Act of 2013.”
Section 2
institutes a right to repair for construction professionals that receive a
notice of claim with respect to a construction defect in a transit-oriented
development.
Section 3
institutes a binding arbitration requirement for claims against construction
professionals with respect to transit-oriented development. This section also
makes construction professionals immune to suit for environmental conditions
including noise, odors, light, temperatures, humidity, vibrations, and smoke or
fumes casually related to transit, commercial, public, or retail use.
With respect to
construction defect actions in general:
Section 4
clarifies that the 90-day tolling provision for construction professionals’
third-party claims found within C.R.S. § 13-80-104 tolls both the statute of
limitations and the statute of repose. This section is meant to ameliorate the
effects of Thermo
Development, Inc. v. Central Masonry Corp., 195 P.3d 1166 (Colo. App. 2008)
and to protect subcontractors and design professionals from ongoing “shotgun
litigation.”
I
expect that the plaintiffs’ construction defect litigation attorneys will
oppose the bill. In addition, I expect that subcontractors and their carriers
may oppose section four of the bill, believing that they would rather have
claims brought against them within six years of substantial completion than to
end “shotgun litigation.”

No comments:
Post a Comment