The Challenge: The roofs of two high-rise apartment buildings were used as staging areas for completion of the interior of the buildings, significantly damaging the top layer of the roofs and requiring total roof replacement. Before replacement, moisture infiltration damaged lower layers of the roofs.

Our Approach: Representing the general contractor's insurance company, we challenged the assertion that a pre-litigation demand equated to a Colorado CDARA notice that would trigger a defense obligation.

The Result: We obtained a precedent-setting ruling in Houston Cas. Co. v. Swinerton Builders clarifying that a mere pre-litigation demand does not equate to a Colorado CDARA notice that would require a defense. This important decision established clearer boundaries for insurer defense obligations in construction disputes.

The Challenge: Balconies at an apartment complex leaked, causing damage to the balconies, but not to framing or the interiors of the apartments. In a subrogation and coverage dispute between insurance companies, the definition of "property damage" under the CGL policy became the central issue.

Our Approach: We developed a focused legal argument based on careful policy analysis and Colorado precedent regarding the definition of "property damage" in a Commercial General Liability policy.

The Result: We secured a significant ruling in Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co. establishing that "property damage" in a CGL policy requires damage to a third party's non-defective work. This decision helped clarify coverage obligations in construction defect cases.

The Challenge: We represented the insurer of a condominium homeowners association that was sued as the result of leaks into an owner's unit. The case involved complex coverage issues across multiple carriers on the risk.

Our Approach: We navigated intricate coverage issues with the unit owners, the homeowners association, and other carriers, developing a comprehensive strategy that protected our client's interests while working toward a global resolution.

The Result: We successfully negotiated a voluntary dismissal of our client from a coverage action filed by one of the other carriers, then pursued contribution of defense costs paid in the underlying action, securing a favorable allocation that properly distributed costs among responsible parties.

A potential additional insured of a CGL carrier demanded coverage when fiber communication lines installed by the named insured proved defective, on two separate occasions. We provided a coverage opinion to the insurer, focusing on whether the loss involved “property damage” under Colorado law and policy exclusions. 

When several new roofs at a university leaked, the general contractor for the project sought insurance coverage from our client. Each roof displayed slightly different defects and damages, requiring a fact-intensive analysis of which defects and which damages were covered. We performed a detailed analysis of reports from various experts to tease out covered versus not-covered items.

The Challenge: A tax software company sued our client, an accounting firm, for nonpayment of invoices and for publication of a derogatory statement. The software company sought an injunction against our client and monetary damages.

Our Approach: We quickly defeated the motion for a preliminary injunction while avoiding a mini-trial ordinarily required for injunctive relief. We filed counterclaims against the plaintiff for failing to perform its obligations under the parties' contract and for fraudulent conduct, and we then entered settlement negotiations.

The Result:The parties resolved their dispute, and the lawsuit was dismissed after only four months in what could have been a protracted, expensive battle.

The Challenge: The relationship between our client, an online commercial real estate listings start-up, and a marketing firm it had hired went south when the marketing firm alleged that our client inappropriately terminated the agreement between the parties and the marketing firm removed our client's access to email marketing domains. 

Our Approach: After the marketing firm sued, alleging breach of contract, we sought both a preliminary and a permanent injunction requiring restoration of access to the marketing domains. We then went to mediation and resolved the dispute.

The Result:By taking an aggressive approach from the outset, we let the other party know that our client wouldn't be intimidated by litigation. We paired this with good faith negotiations, resulting in a favorable resolution for our client.