 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bush v. Roche Constructors Inc.8/15/1991
had already accrued as of the effective date of that statute.
Here, the alleged defect occurred before construction was completed in 1980, and plaintiffs did not discover the problem until 1988. Their claim for relief had not yet arisen under the former statute as of the date that the amended statute of repose became effective on July 1, 1986. Thus, we conclude that § 13-80-104 may properly be applied to bar plaintiffs' claims without violating the prohibition against retrospective legislation contained in Colo. Const. art. II, § 11. See Yarbro v. Hilton Hotels Corporation, supra.
IV.
Plaintiffs finally contend that the application of § 13-80-104 to their claims violated the guarantees under Colo. Const. art. I, §§ 6 and 25. However, because these assertions were not made in the trial court, we decline to consider them for the first time on appeal. See Colgan v. State Department of Revenue, 623 P.2d 871 (Colo. 1981).
V.
We have considered the plaintiffs' other contentions and conclude that they lack merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Disposition
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
|