(1) (a) The general assembly finds and determines that:
The interpretation of insurance policies issued to construction professionals is of vitalimportance to the economic and social welfare of the citizens of Colorado and in furthering the purposes of this part 8.
Insurance policies issued to construction professionals have become increasingly complex, often containing multiple, lengthy endorsements and exclusions conflicting with the reasonable expectations of the insured.
The correct interpretation of coverage for damages arising out of construction defects is in the best interest of insurers, construction professionals, and property owners.
(b) The general assembly declares that:
The policy of Colorado favors the interpretation of insurance coverage broadly forthe insured.
The long-standing and continuing policy of Colorado favors a broad interpretation ofan insurer's duty to defend the insured under liability insurance policies and that this duty is a first-party benefit to and claim on behalf of the insured.
The decision of the Colorado court of appeals in General Security Indemnity Company of Arizona v. Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company, 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009) does not properly consider a construction professional's reasonable expectation that an insurer would defend the construction professional against an action or notice of claim contemplated by this part 8.
For the purposes of guiding pending and future actions interpreting liability insurance policies issued to construction professionals, what has been and continues to be the policy of Colorado is hereby clarified and confirmed in the interpretation of insurance policies that have been and may be issued to construction professionals.
For the purposes of this section:
"Insurance" has the same meaning as set forth in section 10-1-102, C.R.S.
"Insurance policy" means a contract of insurance.
"Insurer" has the same meaning as set forth in section 10-1-102, C.R.S.
"Liability insurance policy" means a contract of insurance that covers occurrences ofdamage or injury during the policy period and insures a construction professional for liability arising from construction-related work.
In interpreting a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, acourt shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured. Nothing in this subsection (3):
Requires coverage for damage to an insured's own work unless otherwise provided inthe insurance policy; or
Creates insurance coverage that is not included in the insurance policy.
(a) Upon a finding of ambiguity in an insurance policy, a court may consider a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations in the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to a construction professional.
(b) In construing an insurance policy to meet a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations, the court may consider the following:
The object sought to be obtained by the construction professional in the purchase ofthe insurance policy; and
Whether a construction defect has resulted, directly or indirectly, in bodily injury,property damage, or loss of the use of property.
(c) In construing an insurance policy to meet a construction professional's objective, reasonable expectations, a court may consider and give weight to any writing concerning the insurance policy provision in dispute that is not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, work-product privilege, or article 72 of title 24, C.R.S., and that is generated, approved, adopted, or relied on by the insurer or its parent or subsidiary company; or an insurance rating or policy drafting organization, such as the insurance services office, inc., or its predecessor or successor organization; except that such writing shall not be used to restrict, limit, exclude, or condition coverage or the insurer's obligation beyond that which is reasonably inferred from the words used in the insurance policy.
If an insurance policy provision that appears to grant or restore coverage conflictswith an insurance policy provision that appears to exclude or limit coverage, the court shall construe the insurance policy to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible.
If an insurer disclaims or limits coverage under a liability insurance policy issued toa construction professional, the insurer shall bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:
Any policy's limitation, exclusion, or condition in the insurance policy bars or limitscoverage for the insured's legal liability in an action or notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5 concerning a construction defect; and
Any exception to the limitation, exclusion, or condition in the insurance policy doesnot restore coverage under the policy.
(a) An insurer's duty to defend a construction professional or other insured under a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional shall be triggered by a potentially covered liability described in:
A notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5; or
A complaint, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim filed in an action against the construction professional concerning a construction defect.
(b) (I) An insurer shall defend a construction professional who has received a notice of claim made pursuant to section 13-20-803.5 regardless of whether another insurer may also owe the insured a duty to defend the notice of claim unless authorized by law. In defending the claim, the insurer shall:
Reasonably investigate the claim; and
Reasonably cooperate with the insured in the notice of claims process.
This paragraph (b) does not require the insurer to retain legal counsel for the insuredor to pay any sums toward settlement of the notice of claim that are not covered by the insurance policy.
An insurer shall not withdraw its defense of an insured construction professional orcommence an action seeking reimbursement from an insured for expended defense cost unless authorized by law and unless the insurer has reserved such right in writing when accepting or assuming the defense obligation.
Source: L. 2010: Entire section added, (HB 10-1394), ch. 253, p. 1125, § 1, effective May 21.
Editor's note: Subsection (2)(b), enacted as subsection (2)(c) in House Bill 10-1394, and subsection (2)(c), enacted as subsection (2)(b) in House Bill 10-1394, were relettered on revision so that defined terms appear in alphabetical order.