Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Sonitrol Corp.
2012 WL 2994956
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Contract between Sonitrol and Core-Mark to install/monitor burglar alarm; Section 12.C limits liability to either 0.5 year of monitoring or $500, whichever is lesser; liability excludes certain damages regardless of cause.
- December 2002 burglary at Core-Mark warehouse; burglars started a fire causing extensive damage.
- Lower court granted summary judgment on contract claims beyond the Section 12.C cap and dismissed tort claims; cases consolidated for damages.
- On appeal, division previously held that the limitation of liability could not bar willful and wanton breach claims; on remand, jury awarded damages to Core-Mark and Insurers.
- On remand, district court excluded Sonitrol's experts concerning fire-code violations and storage of hazardous materials; experts were later excluded; jury damages were reversed for new trial on damages; costs were vacated.
- Contested issues include enforceability of the limitation clause for willful and wanton breach, admissibility of expert testimony, and apportionment against a nonparty at fault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of the liability-limitation clause for willful/wanton breach | Core-Mark argues clause generally enforces damages cap. | Sonitrol argues public policy allows carve-out for willful/wanton conduct. | Limitation not enforceable for willful/wanton breach; public policy exception applied. |
| Admissibility of Sonitrol's expert testimony on fire-code violations | Experts’ testimony relevant to foreseeability and damages should be admitted. | Exclusion appropriate as irrelevant/unreliable. | District court abused its discretion; exclusion not harmless; new damages trial ordered. |
| Designation of Ottersberg as a nonparty at fault (section 13-21-111.5) | Sonitrol sought apportionment against nonparty at fault. | Statute not applicable to contract claims; cannot designate nonparties for contract damages. | Statute does not apply to contract claims; Ottersberg cannot be designated as nonparty at fault. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Fire Ins. Co. v. Sonitrol Mgmt. Corp., 192 P.3d 543 (Colo. App. 2008) (law on willful/wanton breach and liability limitations in contract matters under review)
- Giampapa v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 64 P.3d 230 (Colo. 2003) (law-of-the-case and reconsideration principles; contract law ambitions)
- Rhino Fund, LLLP v. Hutchins, 215 P.3d 1186 (Colo. App. 2008) (public policy and exculpatory clause considerations in contract)
- Mortg. Fin., Inc. v. Podleski, 742 P.2d 900 (Colo. 1987) (exemplary damages and contract damages framework)
- F.D.I.C. v. Am. Cas. Co., 843 P.2d 1285 (Colo. 1992) (public policy limits on certain exculpatory provisions)