Claims Against Construction Professionals
The bill aims to redefine the parameters of the economic loss rule within the context of construction claims, ensuring that property owners have a clear legal avenue to pursue damages when homes are not built as per reasonable standards. This change may lead to an increase in liability for construction professionals, as they would be accountable for their work irrespective of whether a defect directly caused physical harm. Moreover, by validating the claims of subsequent property owners, the bill bolsters consumer rights and promotes higher standards of construction quality across the residential market in Colorado.
Senate Bill 185 proposes amendments to the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding claims made by residential property owners against construction professionals. The core objective of the bill is to clarify the independent duty of care that construction professionals owe to both original and subsequent purchasers of residential properties. By establishing this duty, the bill seeks to ensure that residential homes are constructed in a non-defective and reasonable manner. This legislation comes in the wake of legal interpretations that have caused confusion regarding the application of the economic loss rule, particularly highlighted by the Colorado Court of Appeals decision in 'Appleby v. Dossey Sudik Structural Engineers LLC'.
The sentiment surrounding SB 185 appears to be generally supportive among consumer advocacy groups and homeowners, as they view the bill as a vital protection for property purchasers. Proponents believe that ensuring an independent duty of care will enhance accountability within the construction industry and provide a recourse for those affected by substandard construction practices. Conversely, some construction professionals might express concerns over increased liability risks that could arise, potentially affecting the overall costs of construction and insurance premiums.
A notable point of contention highlighted during discussions involves the balance between protecting consumers and the implications for construction professionals. Critics of the stringent duty of care stipulation may argue that it places undue burdens on constructors, potentially deterring investment in residential projects or leading to inflated housing costs. As this bill progresses, it will be crucial to monitor how these tensions are addressed to ensure that both property buyers' rights and the realities of the construction industry are adequately represented.