 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CLPF-Parkridge One1/31/2005
ses. Within its provisions are two sections that expressly anticipate the use of C.R.C.P. 13 and 14.
Section 13-20-802.5(1) defines the word "action" to include a cross-claim or third-party claim in a suit for construction defect damages:
"Action" means a civil action or an arbitration proceeding for damages, indemnity, or contribution brought against a construction professional to assert a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim for damages or loss to, or the loss of use of, real or personal property or personal injury caused by a defect in the design or construction of an improvement to real property.
§ 13-20-802.5(1), C.R.S. (Colo. 2004)(emphasis added).
Moreover, a central feature of CDARA is a provision for plaintiff identification of the construction defect.
(I)n every action brought against a construction professional, the claimant shall file with the court or arbitrator and serve on the construction professional an initial list of construction defects in accordance with this section.
§ 13-20-803(1), C.R.S. (Colo. 2004) Section 13-20-803(4) is a provision that contemplates the addition of subcontractors in the construction defect lawsuit:
If a subcontractor or supplier is added as a party to any action under this section, the claimant making the claim against such subcontractor or supplier shall file with the court and serve on the defendant an initial list of construction defects in accordance with this section within sixty days after service of the complaint against the subcontractor or supplier or within such longer period as the court in its discretion may allow.
§ 13-20-803(4), C.R.S. (Colo. 2004)(emphasis added).
Accordingly, two other provisions of CDARA expressly anticipate claims against other parties after the construction defect lawsuit commences, or the addition of third parties, in order to resolve who is responsible for the identified defect and damages due.
The trial court's construction of section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) conflicts with section 13-20-802.5(1) and section 13-20-803(4). Of course, our duty is to resolve such a conflict by ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly. Here, the legislative history of CDARA reveals that the legislature intended section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) to operate as a statute of limitations tolling provision, not as a ripeness requirement that would preclude carefully tailored indemnity or contribution cross-claims or third-party claims.
3. The Legislative History
The General Assembly enacted CDARA for the purpose of streamlining construction defect litigation. It understood from testimony that the traditional reaction of a general contractor in answer to the complaint of a building owner was to cross-name or add everybody and anybody who had any part to play in the construction chain. Representative Stengel, the bill's cosponsor, deplored such "shot gun" litigation. Transcript of Construction Defect Action Reform Act Hearings on House Bill 01-1166 Before House Business and Labor Comm., 63rd General Assembly, First Sess. (Mar. 6, 2001) at 1 (statement of Representative Stengel) (hereinafter "Transcript of Hearings"). A principal purpose of the bill was to require identification of the alleged defect and pinpoint who is responsible for it.
It's going to end shot gun lawsuits" and "limit who can be involved the people that are responsible for the defect" so that " nly the subcontractors that are responsible for the defects will be entered into the action.
Id. at 1.
Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the bill intended to allow addition
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|