In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Holmes, 193 P.3d 821 (Colo. 2008), a homeowner brought an action against the manufacturer of a defective Entran II hose used in an embedded heating system. The homeowner sought to recover the cost of replacing the entire heating system. The rubber hose that was part of the system began to leak in 1993. After the hose continued to leak for several years, despite numerous repairs, the homeowner replaced the entire heating system in 2001 and 2002. In a suit against the manufacturer of the hose, the homeowner sought and recovered the costs of replacing the heating system. The homeowner also moved, post trial, for prejudgment interest under C.R.S. § 5-12-102, as of the date of the installation of the defective hose in 1991. The homeowner’s motion was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals, relying on Mesa Sand & Gravel Co. v. Landfill, Inc., 776 P.2d 362 (Colo. 1989), held that prejudgment interest should run from the time of installation of the defective hose in 1991.
After granting certiorari, the Supreme Court held that: 1) “wrongful withholding” occurred, for purposes of the accrual of prejudgment interest in replacement cost cases involving damage to property, after the plaintiff was wronged, disapproving of Porter Constr. Services, Inc. v. Ehrhardt, Keefe, Steiner and Hottman, P.C., 131 P.3d 1115 (Colo. App. 2005) and Isbill Associates, Inc. v. Denver, 666 P.2d 1117 (Colo. App. 1983); and 2) prejudgment interest started accruing on the date homeowner replaced the heating system rather than on the date the defective hose was installed.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys in construction cases have historically relied upon accrual of interest from the time of incorporation of defective construction elements to pay their contingent fees, leaving the homeowners with a greater portion of the jury award or settlement amount. The Goodyear case has left such attorneys scrambling to address this issue at the legislature. There will be more to come on this issue as the 2010 Colorado legislative session continues and plaintiff attorneys attempt to circumvent this ruling.
For additional information regarding Colorado construction litigation, please contact David M. McLain at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.

Recent Posts

Denver’s Minimum Wage: How a Small Payroll Mistake Can Become a Big Problem for Colorado Contractors

A construction company underpays an employee by $2.32 for a single day’s work.  It corrects…

4 days ago

Colorado Is Pricing Itself Out of Prosperity: Housing Affordability, Government Policy, and the Cost of Building

Colorado built its reputation on opportunity.  For decades, the state attracted families, workers, entrepreneurs, and…

6 days ago

You Filed a Mechanic’s Lien. Then You Discovered a Mistake. Now What?

Recording a mechanic's lien is an important tool for Colorado contractors seeking payment for labor,…

1 week ago

One Building, Six Owners, One Defective Stucco System: How Do You Coordinate Repairs?

Colorado's new right-of-access statute may help address one of the unintended consequences of individually owned…

1 week ago

Same Insurers, Different Results: Another Chapter in Acuity v. Kinsale and the Limits of Co-Carrier Recovery Under Colorado Law

When multiple insurers potentially owe coverage for the same construction defect claim, can one insurer…

2 weeks ago

Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim

Colorado's construction defect statutes establish specific requirements for notices of claim and statutory tolling. It…

2 weeks ago