In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F.Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), a contractor and one of its insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractor’s defense in construction defect actions brought by homeowners.
This case emphasizes the need to be especially diligent and thorough when drafting complaints in construction defect matters. Additionally, the Greystone case makes clear that general allegations of “consequential damages” without specific explanation as to the nature of such damages, may fail to trigger insurance coverage and therefore an insurance carrier’s duty to defend or to indemnify.
A construction company underpays an employee by $2.32 for a single day’s work. It corrects…
Colorado built its reputation on opportunity. For decades, the state attracted families, workers, entrepreneurs, and…
Recording a mechanic's lien is an important tool for Colorado contractors seeking payment for labor,…
Colorado's new right-of-access statute may help address one of the unintended consequences of individually owned…
When multiple insurers potentially owe coverage for the same construction defect claim, can one insurer…
Colorado's construction defect statutes establish specific requirements for notices of claim and statutory tolling. It…