News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

Covid-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

Covid-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

Covid-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

Read the Room: Arguments that Work in Court but May Backfire at Mediation

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

WSHB Case Update: Colorado Supreme Court Overturns Years of Rulings Barring Third-Party Claims in Construction Defect Litigation as Untimely

March 17, 2017

In re Goodman v. Heritage Builders, No. 16SA193, 2017 CO 13, –P.3d–, 2017 WL 778227 (Colo. 2017)

Why this Case is Important

The Colorado Supreme Court in In Re Goodman v. Heritage Builders held that third-party claims in construction defect cases are timely so long as the first-party claims are not time-barred and the third-party claims are brought either during the first-party litigation or within 90 days of judgment or settlement, regardless of whether the original statute of limitations or statute of repose on the original claim has expired. In other words, general contractors now have the ability to bring third-party claims against subcontractors without worrying about the two-year statute of limitations or the six-year statute of repose, and subcontractors arguably no longer have statute of limitations or statute of repose defenses in third-party actions.


This case involved alleged construction defects against a general contractor, Heritage Builders Inc. (“Heritage”), and Heritage’s third-party claims against Studio B Architects (“Studio B”) for alleged design deficiencies. Studio B filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that all of Heritage’s third-party claims were barred by the six-year statute of repose. The trial court determined that Heritage’s claims arose when it received notice of the alleged defects in July 2013, more than six years after substantial completion of the home, and thus any claims against third parties were barred. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling.

Heritage appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, and the Court accepted, as it raised an issue of first impression as to whether the six-year statute of repose applied to the timeliness of third-party claims in construction defect cases.

The Ruling

In general, construction defect claims in Colorado are subject to a two-year statute of limitations (based on the date of discovery) and a six-year statute of repose (based on the date of substantial completion). See C.R.S. §§ 13-80-102, 13-80-104(1)(a), respectively. However, C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II), which governs third-party construction defect claims, states that:

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), all claims…by a claimant against a person who is or may be liable to the claimant for all or part of the claimant’s liability to a third person:

(A) Arise at the time the third person’s claim against the claimant is settled or at the time final judgment is entered on the third person’s claim against the claimant, whichever comes first; and

(B) Shall be brought within ninety days after the claims arise, and now thereafter.

The Colorado Supreme Court looked at the legislative intent of the 90-day limitation, and determined that it applied to third-party claims irrespective of both the statute of limitations and statue of repose. Specifically, C.R.S. § 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) begins with the statement, “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1).” The provisions of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) contain both the statute of limitations and the statute of repose. The Supreme Court thus concluded that to apply either the statute of limitations or the statute of repose to third-party construction defect claims would render the “notwithstanding” language superfluous, which was obviously not the intent of the legislature.

In its conclusion, the Court stated that third-party construction defect claims may be brought in either the underlying construction defect litigation before settlement/final judgment, or in a separate lawsuit brought within 90 days of a settlement or entry of judgment of the first-party claims.

Lessons to be Learned

Prior to this case, multiple Colorado court cases held that the statute of repose barred any third-party construction defect claims brought outside of the six-year statute of repose time period, and that bringing said claims within 90 days of settlement or judgment was irrelevant. The Colorado Supreme Court in Heritage specifically stated that such rulings in major cases like Shaw, Thermo, and Sierra were overruled.

The Heritage ruling has significant implications for construction defect litigation in Colorado. Previously, statute of repose deadlines were usually looming from the beginning of litigation, forcing general contractors to hastily try to identify third-party defendants and to bring actions out of fear of having such claims barred. Multiple third-party claims and parties would then be voluntarily dismissed after additional information was identified or discovered. Now, general contractors will be able to identify third-party claims and parties throughout litigation, and can use the process of discovery to bolster and validate such claims.

Most importantly, general contractors can now make third-party claims against their subcontractors regardless of when the subcontractor last worked on the project or building. Thus, in a situation where a general contractor hired multiple subcontractors to build a development, as long as the plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the statutes of limitation or repose, the general contractor will be able to bring third-party claims against the subcontractors even if the subcontractor last worked on the project more than six years ago (as long as the general contractor brings claims within 90 days of settlement or final judgment).

This obviously does not bode well for third-party subcontractors and design professionals. Now, based on the Heritage holding, subcontractors no longer have statutes of limitation or repose defenses when a general contractor sues them in a third-party action. If a plaintiff brings claims against the general contractor, and those claims are not barred by either the statutes of limitation or repose, then any third-party claims made by the general contractor against the subcontractors, either as part of the litigation against the general contractor, or within 90 days of settlement/final judgment, are automatically timely.

The full implications of this ruling will not be immediately known, and subsequent court rulings are anticipated to shed additional light on how the Heritage case will affect Colorado construction defect litigation.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2020 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required