2013 COA 7
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- SCA agreed in August 2006 to provide land planning/development services for Coleman’s Crown Mountain project and later the Emma Road property.
- In early 2007, Coleman and SCA orally extended services to the Emma Road property with terms similar to the 2006 letter agreement; district court found the 2007 agreement embodied the same duties.
- In 2009, SCA sued Coleman for breach regarding the Emma Road property; Coleman counterclaimed that SCA negligently provided inaccurate advice and that the county denied the PUD sketch plan.
- The district court granted summary judgment for SCA, ruling the economic loss rule bars Coleman's negligence counterclaims.
- After settlement of SCA’s claims, Coleman retained negligence claims and appealed the economic loss ruling; Dan Coleman’s appeal was later dismissed for lack of standing.
- The appellate court upheld that there is no independent common-law duty of care for land planners and affirmed the application of the economic loss rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the economic loss rule bar the negligence counterclaims? | SCA | Coleman | Yes; counterclaims barred |
| Is there an independent professional duty of care for land planners | Coleman | SCA | No independent duty recognized |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo.2000) (economic loss rule framework)
- Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App.1988) (material breach vs. economic loss)
- A Good Time Rental, LLC v. First American Title Agency, Inc., 259 P.3d 534 (Colo.App.2011) (distinguishing contract duties from independent tort duties)
- Interbank Invs., L.L.C. v. Vail Valley Consol. Water Dist., 12 P.3d 1224 (Colo.App.2000) (substantial performance and material breach analysis)
- Newcomb v. Schaeffler, 131 Colo. 56, 279 P.2d 409 (Colo.1955) (substantial performance concept)