
In Sierra Pacific Industries v. Bradbury, 2016 Colo. App. Lexis 1274, 2016 COA 132 (September 8, 2016), Sierra Pacific Industries, Inc. (Sierra Pacific), a subcontractor hired to supply windows and doors on a condominium construction project, filed an indemnification action against Jason Bradbury, d/b/a Bradbury Construction, Inc. (Bradbury), a sub-subcontractor Sierra Pacific hired to install windows and doors. After the trial court granted summary judgment in Bradbury’s favor, the Court of Appeals of Colorado addressed whether Colorado’s six-year statute of repose for construction defect claims, C.R.S. § 13-8-104, barred Sierra Pacific’s claims against Bradbury. In particular, the court addressed the question of whether the tolling period for indemnification claims set forth in § 13-8-104(b)(1) tolls the repose period. The court also addressed how the phrase “substantial completion” should be interpreted in multi-contractor construction cases. Finally, the court considered whether Sierra Pacific could rely on the “repair doctrine” to extend the “substantial completion” date, the date on which the statute of repose begins to run. Sierra Pacific reminds us that, when a defendant invokes a construction defect statute of repose to defeat a plaintiff’s claims, it is important to analyze how the jurisdiction at issue defines the phrase “substantial completion” and how it applies tolling arguments to the statute of repose.
The underlying cause of action giving rise to Sierra Pacific’s claims against Bradbury involved alleged defects in the construction of a condominium building. The construction was completed in 2002. In 2004, the condominium’s residents complained about water infiltration from the windows and doors. Bradbury made repair efforts in 2004 but none thereafter. The general contractor, Weitz Company I, Inc. (Weitz) and Sierra Pacific attempted repairs in 2004, 2005 and 2011. In 2011, the condominium association, Ajax Lofts Condominium Association, Inc. (Ajax) sued Weitz for the defects and Weitz joined Sierra Pacific as a third-party defendant. Ajax, Sierra Pacific and Weitz reached a settlement in July 2014.
In October 2014, Sierra Pacific filed an indemnification action against Bradbury seeking to recover its losses from the underlying settlement and related damages. Bradbury filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the action was barred by the six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property set forth in Colorado’s Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA). The lower court granted Bradbury’s motion, finding that the statute of repose began to run when Bradbury substantially completed its work in 2004, when Bradbury stopped making repair efforts. Sierra Pacific filed an appeal, arguing that its claims against Bradbury did not “arise” until after it settled the underlying case in 2014 and that, after that time, it had ninety days in which to file its complaint. Sierra Pacific also argued that, even if the settlement did not toll the statute of limitations, the repose period did not start to run until 2011, when efforts to repair Bradbury’s defective work stopped and Bradbury’s work was substantially complete.
Section 13-80-104 contains both a two-year statute of limitations and a six-year statute of repose. The statute of repose expires six years “after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property.” Under the statute, the repose period is extended two years if the cause of action arose during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion.
Section 13-80-104(1)(b) states that indemnification claims can be filed within ninety days after the claim arises. Sierra Pacific argued that, based on § 13-80-104(1)(b), it had ninety days after it settled the underlying claim in 2014 to file its action and, thus, its action was timely-filed. The court rejected this argument, finding that, consistent with prior case law, the settlement tolling provision in § 13-18-104(1)(b) tolled the statute of limitations, but not the statute of repose.
Sierra Pacific also argued that the lower court erred when it granted summary judgment because genuine issues of fact remained on the question of when the statute of repose expired. According to Sierra Pacific, the “repair doctrine” applied and, thus, its work was not substantially complete until 2011, when Weitz’s and Sierra Pacific’s attempts to fix Bradbury’s work ended.
The court began its analysis by interpreting the phrase “substantial completion” in the CDARA and considering whether the “repair doctrine” impacts when an improvement is “substantially complete,” and, thus, the repose period begins to run. Discussing the statutory tolling period allowed by the CDARA for repairs, the court noted that the purpose of the statute of repose is to prevent defendants from being subjected to “potentially open-ended liability for an indefinite period of time” and explained that Sierra Pacific’s interpretation of the repair doctrine – applying the doctrine based on a different contractor’s attempted repairs - would subject every contractor on a project to open-ended liability for as long as any other contractor performed work on the project. Thus, the court found that Sierra Pacific’s interpretation would be contrary to the intent of the CDARA and held that the statute of repose begins to run with respect to a contractor when that contractor completes its work. As such, the repair doctrine only applies when the defendant, itself, attempts repairs. Since Bradbury abandoned its repair efforts in 2004, the statute of repose began to run then and expired by the time Sierra Pacific filed this indemnification action in 2014. Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s order granting Bradbury’s motion for summary judgment.
The Sierra Pacific case establishes that, in Colorado, the repose period can be different for each contractor on a single construction project and that the period with respect to one contractor is not tolled by additional work by other contractors. It is important to consider the possibility of various repose periods when evaluating a construction defect subrogation case, as the time remaining to bring a lawsuit may vary for each contractor. This case also reminds us that, in Colorado, underlying settlement agreements giving rise to indemnification claims do not impact repose periods in Colorado.
Editor's Note: On February 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Colorado issued a decision in Goodman v. Heritage Builders, Inc., 390 P.3d 398 (2017). In Goodman, the court discussed how to apply the statute of repose to an indemnification claim. The court overruled Sierra Pacific to the extent that it held that “claims brought outside the statute of repose timeframe, but brought within the timeframe outlined in [§] 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) are barred.” Pursuant to Goodman, third-party claims for contribution or indemnification are timely, irrespective of both the two-year statute of limitations in C.R.S. § 13-80-102 and the six-year statute of repose in § 13-80-104(1)(a), so long as they are brought any time before the ninety-day timeframe outlined in section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II). Please read our article, Applying the Statute of Repose for Construction Claims, Colorado's Supreme Court Finds Third-Party Claims Timely-Filed, for a more detailed discussion of the Goodman decision.
Recent Posts
Categories
- Products Liability
- CPSC Recalls
- Construction Defects
- Statute of Limitations-Repose
- Minnesota
- California
- Experts – Daubert
- Maryland
- Jurisdiction
- CPSC Warning
- Rhode Island
- Experts - Reliability
- Podcast
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Workers' Compensation
- Uncategorized
- Negligence
- New York
- Contracts
- Cargo - Transportation
- Landlord-Tenant
- Sutton Doctrine
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Arbitration
- Texas
- Pennsylvania
- AIA Contracts
- Evidence
- Florida
- Economic Loss Rule
- Malpractice
- Wyoming
- Spoliation
- Tennessee
- Water Loss
- Indiana
- Michigan
- Comparative-Contributory Negligence
- Contribution-Apportionment
- Assignment
- Missouri
- Parties
- Public Policy
- Civil Procedure
- New Jersey
- Res Judicata
- Arkansas
- Damages
- Damages – Personal Property
- Product Liability
- Arizona
- Certificate of Merit
- Litigation
- West Virginia
- Oklahoma
- Builder's Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Georgia
- Illinois
- Insurable Interest
- Limitation of Liability
- Mississippi
- Made Whole
- Delaware
- Settlement
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Construction
- Premises Liability
- Joint or Several Liability
- Montana
- Duty
- Privity
- New Mexico
- Right to Repair Act
- Massachusetts
- Landlord
- Tenant
- Building Code
- Causation
- Architects-Engineers
Tags
- Subrogation
- Products Liability
- Construction Defects
- Product Liability
- Podcast
- Minnesota
- California
- Subro Sessions
- Experts
- Jurisdiction
- Maryland
- Texas
- Statute of Repose
- Jurisdiction - Personal
- Statute of Limitations - Accrual
- Experts – Daubert
- Waiver of Subrogation
- Rhode Island
- CPSC Recalls; Products Liability
- Contracts
- Negligence
- Civil Procedure
- Landlord-Tenant
- Experts - Reliability
- Pennsylvania
- Georgia
- Certificate of Merit
- Louisiana
- Amazon-eBay
- Made Whole
- Economic Loss Doctrine
- New York
- Florida
- Construction Contracts
- Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Illinois
- Experts – Qualifications
- New Jersey
- Parties
- Ohio
- Right to Repair Act
- Statute of Limitations - Tolling
- Contracts - Enforcement
- Arizona
- Sutton Doctrine
- West Virginia
- Indiana
- Design Defect
- Spoliation
- Water Damage
- Evidence
- Evidence - Hearsay
- Connecticut
- Damages
- Privity
- Condominiums
- Massachusetts
- Tennessee
- Statute of Limitations
- workers' compensation subrogation
- Limitation of Liability
- Apportionment
- Expert Qualifications
- Exculpatory Clause
- Amazon
- Arbitration
- Negligence – Duty
- Wisconsin
- Workers’ Compensation
- Public Policy
- Missouri
- Negligent Undertaking
- Statute of Limitations - Contractual
- Delaware
- Loss of Use
- Vehicles
- Indemnification
- Architects-Engineers
- Washington
- AIA Contract
- Warranty - Implied
- Res Judicata
- Settlement
- Statute of Limitations - Repose
- Improvement
- Michigan
- Malpractice
- Idaho
- Internet Sales
- Non-Party at Fault
- Spoliation – Fire Scene
- Gross Negligence
- Malfunction Theory; Design Defect
- Mississippi
- Statute of Limitations – Discovery Rule
- Independent Duty
- Cargo-Transportation
- Contribution
- Implied Warranty of Habitability
- Warranty - Construction
- North Carolina
- Utah
- Standing
- Comparative Fault
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Res Ipsa
- New Mexico
- Contracts - Formation
- Unconscionable
- Failure to Warn
- Manufacturing Defect
- Pleading
- Removal
- Entire Controversy Doctrine
- Motion to Intervene
- Subrogation; High-Net-Worth; Damages; Art; Cargo-Transportation; Anti-Subrogation Rule
- Nevada
- Virginia
- Products Liability – Risk-Utility
- Lithium-ion battery
- Burden of Proof
- Anti-Subrogation Rule; Wyoming; Landlord-Tenant; Sutton Doctrine
- New Hampshire
- Oklahoma
- Sanctions
- Builder’s Risk
- Contractual Subrogation
- Equitable Subrogation
- Insurable Interest
- Joint-Tortfeasors
- Arkansas
- Kentucky
- Daubert
- Fire - Cigarettes
- Colorado
- Causation
- Third Party
- Discovery-Sanctions
- Accepted Work
- Malfunction Theory
- Montana
- Independent Contractor
- Privilege
- Betterment
- Damages-Code Upgrades
- Insurance Coverage
- First Party Claims
- Forum-Venue
- Warranty – Express
- AIA Contracts
- Anti-Indemnity Statutes
- Products Liability - Foreseeability
- Discovery - Experts
- MCS-90
- Substantial Completion
- Reimbursement
- Assignment
- Counterclaim
- Products Liability; Malfunction Theory
- Economic Loss Rule
- Unfair Trade Practices
- Evidence – Probative Value
- Parties – Real Party in Interest
- Status of Repose
- Evidence - Public
- Construction Defects - Fixtures
- Subrogation – Equitable
- Additional Insured
- Trespass
- Contract
- COVID-19
- Incorporation by Reference
- Damages – Emotional Distress
- Oregon
- Third Party Spoliation
- No-Fault Subrogation
- Products Liability; Mississippi
- Inverse Condemnation
- Jury Instructions
- Food and Beverage
- South Carolina
- California Court of Appeals Holds Subrogating Carrier Cannot Assert Claims of Its Suspended Insured
- Debt Collection
- Medical Benefits
- Montreal Convention
- Immunity
- Products Li
- Wyoming
- Release
- Liens
- Kansas
Authors
Archives
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- December 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- February 2013