Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
229 P.3d 282 | Colorado Court of Appeals | 2009
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Hamon Contractors sued the project administrator Carter & Burgess for fraud and other torts related to a public works project. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment dismissing all tort claims, ruling that the economic loss rule bars fraud claims when the alleged wrongdoing stems from contractual duties. This means subcontractors generally cannot sue for fraud if the dispute arises from how a contract was performed, even if the conduct was intentional.
Key Takeaways
- •You cannot sue for fraud if the dispute involves how someone performed their contractual duties—you're limited to contract remedies like damages or change orders.
- •The economic loss rule applies even to intentional misconduct, so document everything in writing within your contract to establish clear expectations and avoid tort claims.
- •If you believe someone committed fraud, review your contract first to see if the issue is contractual performance; if so, pursue contract claims and dispute resolution procedures instead of tort litigation.
The economic loss rule can apply to fraud or other intentional tort claims based on post-contractual conduct.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue a project administrator for fraud if they misled me about contract terms or project requirements?
Not under tort law in Colorado. If the fraud relates to how contractual duties were performed, the economic loss rule blocks fraud claims. Instead, pursue contract remedies through your dispute resolution process, change orders, or damages claims based on breach of contract.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.