Legal Opinion · Dissent
Copper Mountain, Inc. v. Industrial Systems, Inc.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided March 16, 2009No. 08SC28Published
1DissentJustice Martinez
In contrast to the majority, I would find the contractual provisions in question bar Copper Mountain, Inc. ("Copper") from recovering for damages to both the contractual Work and non-Work property.1
The waiver provisions at issue here-paragraphs 114.7 and 114.5 of the standard American Institute of Architects ("AIA") contract-have been interpreted by a majority of jurisdictions as barring an owner's claims for damage to non-Work property to the extent the owner's insurance policy covering the Work also covers the non-Work property. See, eg., Rahr Malting Co. v. Climatic Control Co., Inc., 150…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Tokio Marine And Fire Insurance Company Limited v. Employers Insurance Of WausauCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Commercial Union Insurance Co. v. Bituminous Casualty CorpCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. A.C.C.T., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Trinity Universal Insurance Co. v. Bill Cox Construction, Inc., Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)2002
- LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY v. Entrex Communication Services, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.