Monthly Archives: May 2008

May 29, 2008

Indemnification statute of limitations does not apply to claims by developer against subcontractors for recovery of costs incurred in performing warranty work

By Tim Gordon

Richmond American Homes of Colorado, Inc. v. Steel Floors, LLC, et al. (Colo. App. 2008)

In a construction defects lawsuit, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling that Richmond’s claims against its subcontractors were time barred to the extent they involved repairs to homes made more than 90 days before the complaint was filed.


May 19, 2008

Free Legal Seminar on the New Ethical Rules for Government Contractors

  Between a Rock and a Hard Place: New Ethics Rules for Government Contractors

Wednesday, June 11, 2008
7:30 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.

Holland & Hart’s Denver Office
555 17th Street, 32nd Floor, Denver, Colorado

Recent revelations of contractor fraud and procurement mismanagement have catapulted federal contracting into the public spotlight. With elections looming, the government response to contracting fraud–both perceived and real–has been dramatic. Recent changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations now require most federal contractors to implement a Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct, as well as a compliance plan to detect fraud and a training program tailored to specific segments of the contractor’s work force. If adopted, additional proposals will soon require mandatory self-reporting of suspected contractor violations of federal criminal law related to the award or performance of a federal contract or subcontract. All of these changes shift significant costs–and risk–to government contractors. Since these requirements must be implemented within 30 to 90 days of contract award, the time to begin implementation planning is now.

Join Holland & Hart’s government contract attorneys as they unravel the complexities of this perilous new world of contractor ethics and present strategies to avoid potential contract termination, debarment or worse!


7:30-8:00 a.m. Breakfast/Registration
8:00-9:30 a.m. Program

Changes to the Federal Acquisition Regulations
Implementing a Contractor Code of Ethics and Business Conduct
Costs and Risks Shift to Government Contractors
Common Coverage Issues
Strategies to Avoid Potential Pitfalls

9:30-10:00 a.m. Q&A / Optional Demo of HHCMS



Charles Lucy, Of Counsel, Holland & Hart LLP
John Scorsine, Of Counsel, Holland & Hart LLP
Dave Glynn, Of Counsel, Holland & Hart LLP

Register online by June 9, 2008.

You may also RSVP by contacting Katie Cloyd at 303-295-8188 or by email at

May 15, 2008

Plaintiff does not have to plead or prove compliance with CDARA

By Tim Gordon

Land-Wells v. Rain Way Sprinkler and Landscape, LLC (Colo. App. 2008)

Within the context of a personal injury action, the Colorado Court of Appeals holds that the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) does not require the plaintiff to plead or prove compliance with the notice process of CDARA, or that the alleged injuries or damages arose from a “construction defect.”