Paros Properties LLC v. Colorado Casualty Insurance, 835 F.3d 1264

Heavy rain in Sept. 2013 triggered a mudslide that destroyed a commercial building in Boulder owned by Paros Properties; Colorado Casualty denied the claim citing a mudslide/mudflow exclusion in the policy.
Owner’s counsel hired an engineer; the building was demolished Oct. 23, 2013; counsel sent a Jan. 29, 2014 email to the insurer listing alleged losses totaling about $1.2M (policy limit ~$907,600).
Owner sued in Colorado state court Feb. 26, 2014 alleging catastrophic damage (complaint noted follow-up correspondence “on or about Jan. 30, 2014” but did not specify a dollar amount beyond a minimal threshold).
Owner’s initial disclosures (April 23–25, 2014) then identified damages exceeding $1.3M; insurer removed to federal court on April 28, 2014 (more than 30 days after service of the complaint).
District court denied remand and granted summary judgment for the insurer; on appeal the Tenth Circuit held removal was untimely based on the state civil cover sheet but affirmed summary judgment because federal jurisdictional requirements were satisfied when judgment was entered and the owner failed to show coverage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)	Owner: presuit Jan. 29 email and complaint reference meant insurer had notice of >$75,000 before removal; removal untimely	Insurer: initial complaint ambiguous; 30-day clock triggered only when owner’s April disclosures showed >$75,000; removal timely under §1446(b)(3) based on “other paper”	The civil cover sheet filed with the complaint (checked >$100,000) was an “other paper” that gave unambiguous notice; removal was untimely, but under Caterpillar the federal court’s adjudication stands because jurisdictional requirements were met when judgment was entered/decided on summary judgment
Coverage: does the explosion exception to the water/mudslide exclusion apply?	Owner: mudslide caused the building to “explode” (sudden burst), so explosion exception applies	Insurer: damage was caused by external mudslide impact (excluded); no evidence of internal pressure buildup or ignition producing an explosion	Held for insurer: “explosion” is reasonably read to mean a sudden release of internal pressure (e.g., bomb, gas explosion); record lacks evidence of internal pressure or ignition — damage was from external impact and collapse, not an explosion, so exclusion applies

Huffman v. Saul Holdings Ltd. Partnership, 194 F.3d 1072 (10th Cir. 1999) (30-day removal clock triggered only by clear, unambiguous notice of amount in controversy)
Akin v. Ashland Chemical Co., 156 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir. 1998) (strict rule: complaint must provide unequivocal notice of removability)
DeBry v. Transamerica Corp., 601 F.2d 480 (10th Cir. 1979) (post‑complaint communications must unambiguously establish removability)
Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1996) (defective removal is statutory, not jurisdictional; final federal judgment may stand if jurisdictional requirements are met at time of judgment)
Heller v. Fire Ins. Exchange, 800 P.2d 1006 (Colo. 1990) (defining surface water and when diversion may change its character for exclusion analysis)
Pre-Cast Concrete Prods., Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 417 F.2d 1323 (7th Cir. 1969) (construing “explosion” as release of internal pressure)