In reviewing cases today through my Westclip service, I came across an interesting case: Colorado Division of Insurance v. Auto-Owner’s Insurance Company, 219 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). I admit that it takes an odd person to find the case interesting, but these are the types of things that keep my mind working.

In the case, a homeowner obtained a judgment against its homebuilder for construction defects, then sought to recover the judgment from the builder’s insurer.  As part of that process, the homeowner complained to the Colorado Department of Insurance regarding the insurer’s refusal to pay the judgment. During its investigation, the DOI asked for a certified copy of the policy from the insurer.  When the insurer failed to comply with the request, the DOI levied a fine against the insurer, and the insurer appealed. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed the DOI’s imposition of a fine.

As attorneys litigating construction defect cases in Colorado, one of the things with which we deal on an ongoing basis is the pursuit of all available coverage for our clients, including through carriers who have issued policies naming our clients as additional insureds.  One of the hurdles to obtaining a defense through AI carriers is obtaining the policies necessary to prove to them that they owe such a duty.  To accomplish this, we rely heavily on the disclosure and discovery process, including taking records depositions of the involved carriers and of the insurance producers.  This can sometimes be a combersome and inefficient process.  That is why the Auto-Owner’s case appears interesting.  If there is a manner in which to have the DOI request the policies on behalf of the putative additional named insured, that may streamline the process.  Its at least something to think about.


If you would like to read more about additional insured coverage for construction defect cases in Colorado, please read our article on the subject, entitled, “Additional Insured and Insured Contract Liability; Insurance Coverage for General Contractors.” If you would like to discuss the topic, please feel free to contact me at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.

Recent Posts

Four HHMR Attorneys Recognized in the 2027 Editions of Best Lawyers®

Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC is proud to announce that Best Lawyers® has recognized…

4 weeks ago

Building More Than a Ramp: HHMR and the Home Builders Foundation

Last Friday, four members of the Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell team traded briefs, depositions,…

4 weeks ago

The Goal Is the Repair, Not the Lawsuit: What Colorado HOA Boards Should Consider Before Suing a Builder

Fourteen years ago, we cautioned Colorado homeowners associations against a “ready, fire, aim” approach to…

4 weeks ago

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

Editor's Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision in…

1 month ago

Defend Now, Allocate Later? An Unresolved Tension in Colorado Construction Law

For decades, Colorado law has recognized an important distinction between the duty to defend and…

1 month ago

Colorado Court Affirms Attorneys’ Fee Award Against Plaintiff’s Counsel for Pursuing Unsupported CCPA Claims

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s award of more than $241,000…

2 months ago