CO Code § 13-20-808 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 20 - Actions|Part 8 - Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage|§ 13-20-808. Insurance Policies Issued to Construction Professionals

     The general assembly finds and determines that:   The interpretation of insurance policies issued to construction professionals is of vital importance to the economic and social welfare of the citizens of Colorado and in furthering the purposes of this part 8.    Insurance policies issued to construction professionals have become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable expectations of the insured.    The correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers, construction professionals, and property owners.       The general assembly declares that:   The policy of Colorado favors the interpretation of insurance coverage broadly for the insured.    The long-standing and continuing policy of Colorado favors a broad interpretation of an insurer's duty to defend the insured under liability insurance policies and that this duty is a first-party benefit to and claim on behalf of the insured.    The decision of the Colorado court of appeals in 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009) does not properly consider a construction professional's reasonable expectation that an insurer would defend the construction professional against an action or notice of claim contemplated by this part 8.    For the purposes of guiding pending and future actions interpreting liability insurance policies issued to construction professionals, what has been and continues to be the policy of Colorado is hereby clarified and confirmed in the interpretation of insurance policies that have been and may be issued to construction professionals.          For the purposes of this section:   “Insurance” has the same meaning as set forth in section 10-1-102, C.R.S.    “Insurance policy” means a contract of insurance.    “Insurer” has the same meaning as set forth in section 10-1-102, C.R.S.    “Liability insurance policy” means a contract of insurance that covers occurrences of damage or injury during the policy period and insures a construction professional for liability arising from construction-related work.       In interpreting a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, a court shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured. Nothing in this subsection (3):   Requires coverage for damage to an insured's own work unless otherwise provided in the insurance policy; or    Creates insurance coverage that is not included in the insurance policy.         Upon a finding of ambiguity in an insurance policy, a court may consider a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations in the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to a construction professional.    In construing an insurance policy to meet a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations, the court may consider the following:   The object sought to be obtained by the construction professional in the purchase of the insurance policy; and    Whether a construction defect has resulted, directly or indirectly, in bodily injury, property damage, or loss of the use of property.       In construing an insurance policy to meet a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations, a court may consider and give weight to any writing concerning the insurance policy provision in dispute that is not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or article 72 of title 24, C.R.S., and that is generated, approved, adopted, or relied on by the insurer or its parent or subsidiary company; or an insurance rating or policy drafting organization, such as the insurance services office, inc., or its predecessor or successor organization; except that such writing shall not be used to restrict, limit, exclude, or condition coverage or the insurer's obligation beyond that which is reasonably inferred from the words used in the insurance policy.       If an insurance policy provision that appears to grant or restore coverage conflicts with an insurance policy provision that appears to exclude or limit coverage, the court shall construe the insurance policy to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible.    If an insurer disclaims or limits coverage under a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, the insurer shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:   Any policy's limitation, exclusion, or condition in the insurance policy bars or limits coverage for the insured's legal liability in an action or notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5 concerning a construction defect; and    Any exception to the limitation, exclusion, or condition in the insurance policy does not restore coverage under the policy.         An insurer's duty to defend a construction professional or other insured under a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional shall be triggered by a potentially covered liability described in:   A notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5; or    A complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim filed in an action against the construction professional concerning a construction defect.         An insurer shall defend a construction professional who has received a notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5 regardless of whether another insurer may also owe the insured a duty to defend the notice of claim unless authorized by law. In defending the claim, the insurer shall: (b) (I) An insurer shall defend a construction professional who has received a notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5 regardless of whether another insurer may also owe the insured a duty to defend the notice of claim unless authorized by law. In defending the claim, the insurer shall:   Reasonably investigate the claim; and    Reasonably cooperate with the insured in the notice of claims process.       This paragraph (b) does not require the insurer to retain legal counsel for the insured or to pay any sums toward settlement of the notice of claim that are not covered by the insurance policy.    An insurer shall not withdraw its defense of an insured construction professional or commence an action seeking reimbursement from an insured for expended defense cost unless authorized by law and unless the insurer has reserved such right in writing when accepting or assuming the defense obligation.          General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company,  History. Source: L. 2010: Entire section added,(HB 10-1394), ch. 253, p. 1125, § 1, effective May 21.    Editor's note:   Subsection (2)(b), enacted as subsection (2)(c) in House Bill 10-1394, and subsection (2)(c), enacted as subsection (2)(b) in House Bill 10-1394, were relettered on revision so that defined terms appear in alphabetical order.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “H.B. 10-1394: New Law Governing Insurance Coverage for Construction Defect Claims”, see 39 Colo. Law. 89 (Aug. 2010). For article, “Greystone and Insurance Coverage for ‘Get To' and ‘Rip and Tear' Expenses”, see 41 Colo. Law. 69 (March 2012). For article, “Insuring the Risk of Construction Defects in Colorado: The Tenth Circuit's Greystone Decision”, see 90 Denv. U.L. Rev. 621 (2013). For article, “TCD and Colorado Pool The Bogeyman Lurks”, see 43 Colo. Law. 43 (April 2014). For article, “Condominium Obsolescence: The Final Act or a New Beginning?”, see 49 Colo. Law. 42 (Jan. 2020). For article, “Applying Waiver and Estoppel Principles to Insurance Contracts”, see 49 Colo. Law. 50 (Jan. 2020). For article, “Your First Insurance Policy Coverage Dispute”, see 49 Colo. Law. 42 (Feb. 2020).   Because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under state law as an occurrence, and liability coverage should apply. Greystone Constr., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011).   The definition of accident in subsection (3) does not apply retroactively to expired insurance policies that may still be subject to claims for occurrences within the policy period. Greystone Constr., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011).   This section does not apply, therefore, to homeowners' claims because the policy periods of their insurance policies had already expired. Greystone Constr., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011).   Statute is not retroactive and applies only to policies for which the policy period had not yet expired on May 21, 2010. TCD, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 COA 65 , 296 P.3d 255.   Section cannot be applied retrospectively when all pertinent transactions occurred and the policy period expired prior to the effective date of the section. Colo. Pool Sys. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., , 317 P.3d 1262 .   According to subsection (7), the notice of claim that triggers the duty to defend is a notice made to the construction professional rather than the insurer. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. High Country Coatings, Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (D. Colo. 2019 ).