Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

An energy company, seeking to address disposal challenges associated with wastewater from its hydraulic fracturing operations, engaged a water technology firm to design and construct a specialized treatment facility. The two sides entered into a series of agreements, culminating in a comprehensive contract for the facility’s construction. Before this final contract was executed, the water technology firm discovered that its design would not meet the energy consumption requirements critical to the energy company, but did not disclose this information. The firm also failed to reveal risks associated with a proposed design change that could affect the quality of the facility’s waste byproduct. Relying on the firm’s representations, the energy company signed the contract and later approved the design change. When the facility failed to meet contractual specifications—producing unusable waste and exceeding power limits—the energy company terminated the contract and sued for breach and fraud.The case was tried in the Denver District Court, which found that the water technology firm had fraudulently induced the energy company into signing the contract by concealing and failing to disclose material facts. The trial court held that the economic loss rule did not bar the fraud claim because the misconduct occurred prior to contract formation. The court awarded the energy company substantial damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed, though it reasoned that the contracts were interrelated but found an independent tort duty still existed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether the economic loss rule barred the fraud claim. The Court held that the interrelated contracts doctrine does not apply when each contract is a stand-alone transaction and that the fraudulent conduct occurred before the governing contract was executed, inducing its formation. Therefore, the economic loss rule does not bar the fraud claim. The judgment was affirmed, and the case was remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees. View "Veolia Water Techs. v. Antero Treatment LLC" on Justia Law

Samantha Pinto was involved in a car accident in December 2020, after which she claimed to have suffered various physical and cognitive injuries, including a concussion and related mental health issues. At the time, she was employed by United Services Automobile Association (USAA), her insurer, and asserted a claim for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits. Pinto alleged significant lost wages and benefits following her termination from USAA, which she attributed to her accident-related health issues. She received $500,000 from the other driver’s insurer but claimed that her damages exceeded that amount, seeking additional recovery from USAA under her UM policy.After USAA denied her UM claim, valuing it at less than what she had already recovered, Pinto filed a breach of contract lawsuit against the company. During discovery in the El Paso County District Court, USAA requested Pinto’s unredacted medical records, documents relating to a subsequent 2022 accident, and required her to submit to an independent medical examination (IME). Pinto objected, arguing that under Schultz v. GEICO Casualty Co., USAA should be limited to the evidence available at the time of its coverage decision. The district court distinguished Schultz, finding the requested information relevant and discoverable for the contract claim, and ordered Pinto to comply.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the district court’s order under its original jurisdiction. It held that the rule from Schultz, which limits review to evidence available when the insurer made its decision, applies only to bad faith claims, not to breach of contract claims. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in compelling production of Pinto’s medical records and insurance documents, and in ordering her to undergo an IME. The order to show cause was discharged. View "Pinto v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n" on Justia Law

This case centers on a car accident between an insured driver, Ortiz, and an uninsured motorist, Camacho, in Colorado. At the time of the collision, Camacho lacked insurance, drove with only a learner’s permit, and was unsupervised. Ortiz, insured by Progressive Direct Insurance Company, sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits from Progressive after the accident. Progressive denied the claim, asserting Ortiz was more than 50% at fault. Ortiz then sued both Camacho for negligence and Progressive for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and unreasonable delay and denial of benefits.Camacho did not respond to the lawsuit, leading the District Court for Garfield County to enter a clerk’s default against her. Progressive had been served but did not object at that time. Progressive’s answer to Ortiz’s complaint included general affirmative defenses but did not specifically assert comparative fault. After Ortiz moved for partial summary judgment, Progressive, for the first time, sought to participate in the liability and damages components of the default judgment hearing. The district court permitted Progressive to contest damages but barred it from contesting liability, finding Progressive had not timely or specifically pleaded its legitimate defenses as required under State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Brekke, 105 P.3d 177 (Colo. 2004). Progressive paid the damages awarded in the default judgment and then proceeded to trial on Ortiz’s bad faith claims, where Ortiz prevailed.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding Progressive failed to meet the Brekke standards for timely and particularized pleading of its legitimate defenses. The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed whether Brekke’s requirements should be reconsidered. The Court clarified that pleading with particularity under Rule 9(b) is only necessary if fraud or mistake is asserted, and otherwise, insurers must plead legitimate defenses specifically and as soon as practicable. The Court affirmed the appellate judgment, reaffirming Brekke and declining to overrule it. View "Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Ortiz" on Justia Law

A public entity contracted with a general contractor to construct a major rail line project. The general contractor, in turn, subcontracted a significant portion of the work to a subcontractor. As the project progressed, it experienced numerous delays and disruptions, which the subcontractor claimed increased its costs. After completing its performance, the subcontractor, relying on expert analysis of its additional costs, filed a verified statement of claim under the Colorado Public Works Act, asserting it was owed additional millions for labor, materials, and other costs, including those stemming from delay and disruption.Following the filing, the general contractor substituted a surety bond for the retained project funds and the subcontractor initiated litigation in Denver District Court. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of the subcontractor, concluding that its verified statement of claim was not excessive and that there was a reasonable possibility the claimed amount was due. The court awarded the subcontractor damages for delay, disruption, and unpaid funds. The general contractor appealed, contending the claim was excessive and should result in forfeiture of all rights to the claimed amount. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in relevant part, holding that the verified statement of claim was excessive as a matter of law and that the subcontractor forfeited all rights to the amount claimed. This disposition left certain issues raised by the subcontractor on cross-appeal unaddressed.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted review and held that, under the Public Works Act, disputed or unliquidated amounts—including delay and disruption damages—may be included in a verified statement of claim if they represent the specified categories of costs and the claim is not excessive under the statute. The court also held that filing an excessive claim results only in forfeiture of statutory remedies under the Act, not all legal remedies. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ralph L. Wadsworth Constr. Co. v. Reg'l Rail Partners" on Justia Law

HIVE Construction, Inc. served as the general contractor for the construction of Masterpiece Kitchen, a restaurant. The contract required HIVE to follow specific architectural plans, including installing two layers of drywall on a wall separating the kitchen and dining area. Instead, HIVE installed one layer of drywall and one layer of combustible plywood without approval. A fire started within the wall, causing significant damage and forcing the restaurant to close. Mid-Century Insurance Company, as the property insurer and subrogee of Masterpiece Kitchen, paid for the damages and then sued HIVE for negligence, alleging willful and wanton conduct.The district court initially allowed Mid-Century to amend its complaint to include a breach of contract claim but later reversed this decision, requiring Mid-Century to proceed with the negligence claim. At trial, the jury found HIVE's conduct to be willful and wanton, awarding damages to Mid-Century. HIVE appealed, arguing that the economic loss rule barred the negligence claim. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the district court's decision and instructing a verdict in HIVE's favor.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that the economic loss rule does not provide an exception for willful and wanton conduct. The court held that the rule barred Mid-Century's negligence claim because the duty HIVE allegedly breached was not independent of its contractual obligations. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, upholding the application of the economic loss rule to bar the negligence claim. View "Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. HIVE Construction" on Justia Law

In the spring of 2020, Colorado State University (CSU) transitioned from in-person to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Renee Alderman and Tyler Stokes, both students, filed class action lawsuits seeking refunds for tuition and fees paid for that semester, alleging CSU breached its contract to provide in-person learning and access to facilities. They also claimed unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the breach of contract claims, citing CSU's statutory authority to suspend operations during unforeseen calamities, and later dismissed the unjust enrichment claims, ruling that the contract covered the same subject matter.Alderman appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of her unjust enrichment claims, holding that CSU's invocation of the statute rendered the contract unenforceable, thus allowing the unjust enrichment claims to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that the lower court erred in holding the contract unenforceable. The court held that the statutory provision allowing CSU to suspend operations was part of the contract, and the inability to state a breach of contract claim did not render the contract itself unenforceable. Consequently, Alderman's unjust enrichment claims failed as a matter of law because a valid, enforceable contract existed covering the same subject matter. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and directed reinstatement of the district court's judgment in favor of CSU. View "Bd. of Governors of the Colo. State Univ. v. Alderman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado was asked to review a case involving a dispute between the City of Aspen and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The dispute centered around alleged construction defects in an affordable housing project overseen by the City of Aspen. The Association claimed that Aspen had breached express and implied warranties, and Aspen argued that the claims were barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), which provides immunity to public entities from claims for injury that lie in tort or could lie in tort.The lower court agreed with Aspen, ruling that the Association's claims sounded in tort, or could sound in tort, and were thus barred by the CGIA. The Association appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision. The appellate court reasoned that the Association's claims could only sound in contract, and thus were not barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the economic loss rule, which generally provides that a party suffering only economic loss from the breach of a contractual duty may not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the appellate court's decision. The court held that the economic loss rule has no bearing on whether the CGIA bars a plaintiff’s claims. The court clarified that the CGIA bars claims that could arise in both tort and contract, and that the economic loss rule cannot rescue an otherwise CGIA-barred claim. The case was remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings. View "City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a ski lift accident that left a minor, Annalea Jane Miller, a quadriplegic. The plaintiff, Michael D. Miller, acting as the parent and guardian of Annalea, sued the defendant, Crested Butte Mountain Resort, alleging negligence per se based on violations of the Ski Safety Act of 1979 and the Passenger Tramway Safety Act, as well as a claim for negligence-highest duty of care. The plaintiff argued that the defendant could not absolve itself of statutory duties through private release agreements that purported to release negligence claims against it.The district court dismissed the negligence per se claim, ruling that the defendant could absolve itself of liability through private release agreements. It also dismissed the negligence-highest duty of care claim, finding that the release agreements signed by the plaintiff were enforceable and barred the claim.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado disagreed with the district court's dismissal of the negligence per se claim. It held that the defendant could not absolve itself of liability for violations of statutory and regulatory duties through private release agreements. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the negligence per se claim.However, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court's dismissal of the negligence-highest duty of care claim. It found that the district court correctly applied the factors set forth in Jones v. Dressel, determining that the release agreements signed by the plaintiff were enforceable and barred the claim. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence-highest duty of care claim.The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff’s negligence per se claim and for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Miller v. Crested Butte, LLC" on Justia Law

John Doe sued the University of Denver (DU) after he was expelled for allegedly engaging in nonconsensual sexual contact with another student, Jane Roe. Doe claimed that DU breached its contract with him by failing to conduct a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation into Roe's accusation, as promised in DU's Office of Equal Opportunity Procedures (OEO Procedures). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DU, and Doe appealed. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed with the lower courts that the promise in DU's OEO Procedures of a "thorough, impartial and fair" investigation, when considered with the specific investigation requirements listed in those procedures, is enforceable under contract law. The court also agreed that the record does not permit the entry of summary judgment for DU on Doe’s general contract claim or on Doe’s contract claim premised on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. However, the court disagreed with the lower courts on Doe’s tort claim, holding that DU does not owe its students an extra-contractual duty to exercise reasonable care in adopting and implementing fair procedures related to the investigation and adjudication of sexual-misconduct claims. Therefore, DU is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Doe’s tort claim. View "University of Denver v. Doe" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Adams County and the City and County of Denver over the use of a noise-modeling system instead of a noise-monitoring system at Denver International Airport, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that Adams County's breach-of-contract claim, brought in 2018, was barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that the claim accrued no later than 1995, when Adams County became aware of Denver's breach of their contract by using a noise-modeling system. The court concluded that under Colorado law, a breach-of-contract claim accrues at the time the breach is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. The court dismissed the argument that the claim only accrued when Adams County became aware of the full extent of its damages and had certainty of harm and incentive to sue in 2014. View "City & County of Denver v. Board of County Commissioners" on Justia Law