Strategic Investigation and Thorough Advocacy Leads to Dismissal and Fee Recovery for National Builder

When a national homebuilder faced a premises liability and negligence lawsuit in Colorado, HHMR’s Andrew Vogelgesang stepped in to methodically analyze the claims and protect the client’s interests.

The plaintiff alleged a trip-and-fall incident on a public sidewalk and named several parties as defendants. Plaintiff’s counsel supplied photographs of the alleged defect, and Andrew used those images as a starting point for his investigation. He personally visited the site to identify the precise location where the incident occurred and then cross-referenced that information with publicly available property records.

Andrew’s investigation confirmed that the sidewalk in question was never owned by our client and that the builder had no role in its design, construction, maintenance, or repair. He also confirmed these facts directly with the client.

Before proceeding with formal motion practice, Andrew contacted opposing counsel, shared the documentation, and requested voluntary dismissal of the builder. Rather than engaging on the merits, plaintiff’s counsel responded with a settlement demand inconsistent with the facts, a “shake-down” approach that left no alternative but to pursue summary judgment.

In briefing the motion, Andrew clearly laid out the lack of ownership, possession, or control over the property and showed that our client did not meet the definition of a “landowner” under the Colorado Premises Liability Act. He also demonstrated the absence of any legal duty under common law negligence. The court agreed and granted summary judgment, dismissing the client from the case.

More than that, the court found that, based on the evidence Andrew developed and presented, the claims against the builder lacked substantial justification. The court awarded attorneys’ fees and costs in our client’s favor.

At HHMR, we believe that doing the hard work early, digging into the facts, understanding the legal framework, and pressing when appropriate, leads to the right result. This case is a clear example of how preparation and precision can resolve litigation efficiently and decisively.