Opinion ID: 2581659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Statute's Conflicting Language

Text: As in other statute of limitation cases, arise is a word that can be clear or unclear, straightforward or ambiguous, depending on the statutory context. In City and County of Denver v. Gonzales, 17 P.3d 137, 140-41 (Colo.2001), for example, we considered different dictionary definitions of the words arise and arising from (originate, stem, result, grow out of, flow from) in the course of analyzing two possibly applicable statute of limitations provisions, one a two-year period, the other a three-year period. We concluded that the legislature intended the three-year period to apply in that case. In part, we relied on the canon that statutes of limitation are in derogation of a presumptively valid claim and the longer period will be preferred because it affords a claimant additional time to prepare and bring its action. Id. at 140. As in Gonzales, we cannot read section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) in isolation from other provisions of the statute. As a whole, the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (CDARA) addresses construction defect cases. Within its provisions are two sections that expressly anticipate the use of C.R.C.P. 13 and 14. Section 13-20-802.5(1) defines the word action to include a cross-claim or third-party claim in a suit for construction defect damages: Action means a civil action or an arbitration proceeding for damages, indemnity, or contribution brought against a construction professional to assert a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim for damages or loss to, or the loss of use of, real or personal property or personal injury caused by a defect in the design or construction of an improvement to real property. § 13-20-802.5(1), C.R.S. (Colo.2004)(emphasis added). Moreover, a central feature of CDARA is a provision for plaintiff identification of the construction defect. (I)n every action brought against a construction professional, the claimant shall file with the court or arbitrator and serve on the construction professional an initial list of construction defects in accordance with this section. § 13-20-803(1), C.R.S. (Colo.2004) Section 13-20-803(4) is a provision that contemplates the addition of subcontractors in the construction defect lawsuit: If a subcontractor or supplier is added as a party to any action under this section, the claimant making the claim against such subcontractor or supplier shall file with the court and serve on the defendant an initial list of construction defects in accordance with this section within sixty days after service of the complaint against the subcontractor or supplier or within such longer period as the court in its discretion may allow. § 13-20-803(4), C.R.S. (Colo.2004)(emphasis added). [5] Accordingly, two other provisions of CDARA expressly anticipate claims against other parties after the construction defect lawsuit commences, or the addition of third parties, in order to resolve who is responsible for the identified defect and damages due. The trial court's construction of section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) conflicts with section 13-20-802.5(1) and section 13-20-803(4). Of course, our duty is to resolve such a conflict by ascertaining the intent of the General Assembly. Here, the legislative history of CDARA reveals that the legislature intended section 13-80-104(1)(b)(II) to operate as a statute of limitations tolling provision, not as a ripeness requirement that would preclude carefully tailored indemnity or contribution cross-claims or third-party claims.