Our Areas Of Practice

Arnett Litigation represents general contractors, subcontractors, and owners in construction defect lawsuits. Construction defect matters are fact-intensive and almost always require experts. We learn the facts efficiently and we work with top experts to develop a realistic, but zealous, liability analysis.

Examples of our work:

• Sinking Roadways.
  We represented the general contractor responsible for preparation and development of a new 800+ home development. When roadways began sinking and concrete began cracking in hundreds of locations, we pursued arbitration against the subcontractor who laid the wet utilities and compacted the soil. In the face of difficult liability proof, we obtained an award of nearly 80% of requested damages.
• Ruptured Sewer Line.
  After a large thunderstorm, a sewer line burst and the associated lift station overflowed, with damage to the lift station and nearby homes. We represent the general contractor who moved the sewer lines as part of a municipal project. Causation – by a subcontractor, by the public entity that installed the gas line, by the state entity that designed the project, or others – remains the key issue. We are working with civil engineers and materials experts to determine causation.
• Defective Roof Installation.
  We represent homeowners who were duped into accepting installation of a replacement roof that was of inferior quality to the original roof. In addition, the roof was defectively installed, varying from manufacturer installation requirements. We served a CDARA notice on the roofing company, and we have worked with experts and the manufacturer to determine the defective installation. We continue to attempt to reach a resolution without resort to litigation.
• Defective Window Glazing.
  We represent the general contractor who built a hospital with unique windows and glazing. When the window subcontractor filed a lien on the property and filed suit for continued holding of retainage, we negotiated a discharge of the lien and a dismissal of the suit. We continue to be involved as experts investigate.
• Overheated Data Center.
  A municipal entity’s newly-constructed data center overheated, damaging the computer equipment inside. We represented the general contractor for the project and resolved the suit with payment of a nuisance amount.
• Defective Football Stadium Concrete.
  A public university filed a pre-litigation CDARA notice claiming defective installation of concrete and other items at a football stadium. We represent the general contractor for the project and are working cooperatively with the university to investigate the problem and devise an appropriate solution.

We represent – and oppose – the toughest construction professionals. Time and again, we obtain exceptional results for our clients. 

We defend clients in lawsuits involving ziplining and other adventure course accidents. Arnett Litigation drafts and updates design-build, training, and subcontractor agreements for outdoor recreation clients, and we draft waivers for gyms and similar companies.

Examples of our work:

• Zipline Emergency Brake Injury.
  We represented the company that provided training to a zipline course operator. When a course guide failed to correctly set the emergency arrest device and a participant was injured as a result, we defeated a claim that our client’s training caused the operator error and participant injury.
• Zipline Primary Brake Failure.
  We represented the designer-builder of a zipline course when it was sued by a participant who was injured when a primary brake failed. In addition to the claims brought by the injured person, the course operator, also a defendant, asserted cross-claims against our client. We first succeeded in obtaining a precedential decision dismissing certain claims on a motion to dismiss. We then negotiated a complex settlement with both the injured party and the course operator.
• Free Fall Device Failure.
  When a triple locking carabiner incorporated into a free-fall device opened, a young woman tragically fell to her death. The victim’s family demanded compensation from the course operator, the manufacturer of the free fall device, and our client, the course installer. With help from the top expert in the field, we determined how the carabiner opened during the accident – and reached settlement without the need for litigation.
• Contract Drafting.
  We have drafted and re-written all template contracts for an adventure course client, working to minimize liability exposure due to contractual traps. We also work with clients to review and comment on contracts received from subcontractors and customers.
• Waivers.
  We draft participant waivers for climbing gyms and similar companies.

We have unparalleled expertise in representing zipline and adventure course companies. We know and understand the industry, how courses are run, the equipment involved, and the implication of the contracts among the parties.  We negotiate the complexities of sensitive accidents and unique courses – and achieve great results for our clients.

Arnett Litigation represents insurers seeking coverage opinions, particularly involving commercial general liability and professional liability policies. We defend carriers sued for bad faith, and we file and defend against declaratory judgment actions.

Examples of our work:

• Defectively Installed Roofs.
  The roofs of two high rise apartment buildings were used as staging areas for completion of the interior of the buildings, significantly damaging the top layer of the roofs and requiring total roof replacement. Before replacement, moisture infiltration damaged lower layers of the roofs. We represented the general contractor’s insurance company and obtained a ruling clarifying that a mere pre-litigation demand does not equate to a Colorado CDARA notice that would require a defense. Houston Cas. Co. v. Swinerton Builders, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230606, Civ. No. 20-cv-03558-NYW (D. Colo. Dec. 2, 2021)
• Defective Balconies.
  Balconies at an apartment complex leaked, causing damage to the balconies, but not to framing or the interiors of the apartments. In a subrogation / coverage dispute between insurance companies, we obtained a ruling that “property damage” in a CGL policy requires damage to a third party’s non-defective work. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857, Civ. No. 21-cv-02404-RMR-NRN (D. Colo. July 5, 2022)
• Declaratory Judgment Action.
  We represent the insurer of a condominium homeowners association that was sued as the result of leaks into an owner’s unit. We navigated coverage issues with the insured and with other carriers on the risk. And we represent our client in the face of a separate declaratory judgment action filed by one of the other carriers. We successfully negotiated a voluntary dismissal of our client from the coverage action and are now considering pursuing contribution of defense costs paid in the underlying action.
• Defective Fiber Communication Line Installation.
  A potential additional insured of a CGL carrier demanded coverage when fiber communication lines installed by the named insured proved defective, on two separate occasions. We provided a coverage opinion to the insurer, focusing on whether the loss involved “property damage” under Colorado law and policy exclusions. 
• Defective Roof Installation.
  When several new roofs at a university leaked, the general contractor for the project sought insurance coverage from our client. Each roof displayed slightly different defects and damages, requiring a fact-intensive analysis of which defects and which damages were covered. We performed a detailed analysis of reports from various experts to tease out covered versus not-covered items.
• Defective House Siding. Customized siding installed on a high-value home in Aspen discolored, resulting in litigation by the homeowner against all potential parties. When the claim was tendered to the general contractor’s insurer, it was not known whether liability was on the insured, the installation subcontractor, the manufacturer of the siding, or the manufacturer of the coating put on the siding. We advised the client with respect to both the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify.

We have expertise in insurance coverage matters, including  Colorado courts’ unique interpretations of standard policy provisions. We help our clients avoid Colorado’s bad faith minefield and defend against bad faith allegations.  We work with our insurance clients to make sure they make the right decision about coverage. The principal of Arnett Litigation was the Chief Litigation Officer of a national P&C carrier for several years, giving us a unique insider’s perspective. We know insurance like few others.