271 P.3d 587
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Safway sues Hyland Hills for indemnity of workers' compensation benefits after a scaffold incident at Water World (May 2006).
- Hyland Hills is a Colorado special district owning Water World; the parties engaged Safway to provide scaffolding services.
- Maurek, Hyland Hills’ assistant general manager, signed Safway’s proposed contract form as “assistant general manager,” but without authority to sign on behalf of Hyland Hills.
- Executive director approved only about $1,800 for the expenditure; full contract signing authority was not granted to Maurek.
- Safway paid workers’ compensation benefits for the injured employee and seeks indemnification under the contract’s indemnity clause; Hyland Hills relies on budgeting restrictions and lack of authority as defenses.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for Hyland Hills, ruling Safway had not proven Maurek’s authority and that Safway did not submit a sworn statement per 24-91-103.6(4); Safway appeals the directed verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 24-91-103.6(4) public works exception applies. | Safway contends the exception applies due to a remedy-granting provision. | Hyland Hills argues the exception does apply but Safway failed to provide the sworn statement. | Yes, but the sworn statement requirement was not met; claim barred. |
| Whether Safway provided the required sworn statement before trial. | Safway argues its trial testimony suffices to satisfy the sworn statement. | Hyland Hills argues the statute requires a sworn statement submitted to the public entity before trial. | Safway failed to submit the sworn statement to Hyland Hills prior to trial; judgment affirmed. |
| Maurek's authority to sign the contract | Safway asserts Maurek had actual, implied, or apparent authority. | Hyland Hills asserts Maurek had no authority to sign the contract. | Court did not reverse on this issue; authority issue would sustain the directed verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Alma v. AZCO Construction, Inc., 10 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2000) (relevance of statutory timing and pretrial posture of claims under public works exceptions)
- AZCO Construction, Inc. v. Town of Alma, 985 P.2d 56 (Colo. App. 1999) (affects interpreting statements and timing under public works exemptions)
- Evans v. Webster, 832 P.2d 951 (Colo. App. 1991) (directed verdict standard and independent review when facts undisputed)
- Reed v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, 13 P.3d 810 (Colo. App. 2000) (preservation/ground for affirming based on record support)
- Spahmer v. Gullette, 113 P.3d 158 (Colo. 2005) (statutory interpretation and plain language rules)
- E-470 Public Highway Authority v. Kortum Inv. Co., 121 P.3d 331 (Colo. App. 2005) (application of statutory language to public works contracts)