Newsletters
Progress Isn’t Perfect: Emerging Professional and Technological Risks Facing Contractors and Design Professionals
September 2025 - Professionally Speaking
Represented a golf course developer against claims for nuisance and trespass from neighboring homeowners, who alleged development activities and watering practices caused a change in groundwater conditions, resulting in damage to their homes. Developer moved for a directed verdict based on the lack of sufficient expert testimony connecting the golf course to any groundwater conditions. The court entered a directed verdict, as requested.
Represented the general contractor responsible for the construction of several buildings at county fairgrounds. After completion of the project, the county asserted various deficiencies in the assembly of the buildings, and sued for repair costs in excess of $25 million. After narrowing the scope of the claim through dispositive motions and effective discovery, the contractor achieved settlement, contributing only a small fraction of the multimillion-dollar amount ultimately paid to the county.
Represented a mechanical subcontractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff appealed a prior entry of summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Acting as lead counsel on behalf of 12 defendants, argued that plaintiff had misconstrued certain requirements under C.R.C.P. 54(b), and, as a result, failed to timely file its appeal. The Court of Appeals agreed, resulting in final dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal and affirmation of trial court order of summary judgment.
Represented the developers of a 320-condominium project. After completion of the project, unit owners sued for repair costs in excess of $57 million. After filing numerous effective motions that narrowed the scope of the association’s claim, achieved a significant settlement, equaling only a small fraction of the association’s original demand.
Represented the general contractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff attempted to circumvent Colorado’s workers’ compensation protections for employers by asserting claims against general contractor who hired the subcontractor for which plaintiff worked. Argued novel issues concerning “statutory employment” before the Colorado Supreme Court, which adopted the position offered, resulting in reversal of Court of Appeals decision and ultimate dismissal of claims against general contractor.
Represented a golf course developer against claims for nuisance and trespass from neighboring homeowners, who alleged development activities and watering practices caused a change in groundwater conditions, resulting in damage to their homes. Developer moved for a directed verdict based on the lack of sufficient expert testimony connecting the golf course to any groundwater conditions. The court entered a directed verdict, as requested.
Represented the general contractor responsible for the construction of several buildings at county fairgrounds. After completion of the project, the county asserted various deficiencies in the assembly of the buildings, and sued for repair costs in excess of $25 million. After narrowing the scope of the claim through dispositive motions and effective discovery, the contractor achieved settlement, contributing only a small fraction of the multimillion-dollar amount ultimately paid to the county.
Represented a mechanical subcontractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff appealed a prior entry of summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Acting as lead counsel on behalf of 12 defendants, argued that plaintiff had misconstrued certain requirements under C.R.C.P. 54(b), and, as a result, failed to timely file its appeal. The Court of Appeals agreed, resulting in final dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal and affirmation of trial court order of summary judgment.
Represented the developers of a 320-condominium project. After completion of the project, unit owners sued for repair costs in excess of $57 million. After filing numerous effective motions that narrowed the scope of the association’s claim, achieved a significant settlement, equaling only a small fraction of the association’s original demand.
Represented the general contractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff attempted to circumvent Colorado’s workers’ compensation protections for employers by asserting claims against general contractor who hired the subcontractor for which plaintiff worked. Argued novel issues concerning “statutory employment” before the Colorado Supreme Court, which adopted the position offered, resulting in reversal of Court of Appeals decision and ultimate dismissal of claims against general contractor.
Represented a golf course developer against claims for nuisance and trespass from neighboring homeowners, who alleged development activities and watering practices caused a change in groundwater conditions, resulting in damage to their homes. Developer moved for a directed verdict based on the lack of sufficient expert testimony connecting the golf course to any groundwater conditions. The court entered a directed verdict, as requested.
Represented the general contractor responsible for the construction of several buildings at county fairgrounds. After completion of the project, the county asserted various deficiencies in the assembly of the buildings, and sued for repair costs in excess of $25 million. After narrowing the scope of the claim through dispositive motions and effective discovery, the contractor achieved settlement, contributing only a small fraction of the multimillion-dollar amount ultimately paid to the county.
Represented a mechanical subcontractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff appealed a prior entry of summary judgment to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Acting as lead counsel on behalf of 12 defendants, argued that plaintiff had misconstrued certain requirements under C.R.C.P. 54(b), and, as a result, failed to timely file its appeal. The Court of Appeals agreed, resulting in final dismissal of plaintiff’s appeal and affirmation of trial court order of summary judgment.
Represented the developers of a 320-condominium project. After completion of the project, unit owners sued for repair costs in excess of $57 million. After filing numerous effective motions that narrowed the scope of the association’s claim, achieved a significant settlement, equaling only a small fraction of the association’s original demand.
Represented the general contractor in a construction accident case. The plaintiff attempted to circumvent Colorado’s workers’ compensation protections for employers by asserting claims against general contractor who hired the subcontractor for which plaintiff worked. Argued novel issues concerning “statutory employment” before the Colorado Supreme Court, which adopted the position offered, resulting in reversal of Court of Appeals decision and ultimate dismissal of claims against general contractor.
Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver) and Michelle Yang (Associate-Denver) obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client, a regional bank with branches throughout Colorado, in the Denver County District Court. The presiding judge granted the motion, dismissing all vicarious liability claims against the bank.
The case arose from an August 2023 motor vehicle collision in which a bank employee struck the plaintiff while driving home from a work-related banking conference. The plaintiff alleged that our client was vicariously liable under respondeat superior, arguing the employee was acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident. Ryan and Michelle successfully argued that Colorado's well-established going-and-coming rule barred the claim, demonstrating that the employee's commute home – regardless of whether the employee had attended a work event earlier that day – did not further the bank's business purpose. The Court agreed, finding no genuine issue of material fact and ruling that the doctrine of respondeat superior was inapplicable as a matter of law.
Ryan A. Williams and Michelle Yang
Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver), Edward O’Brien (Partner-Louisville), and Gabrielle Lalonde (Associate-Denver) secured an appellate victory in the Colorado Court of Appeals for Wilson Elser’s client, Jim Black Construction. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the client in its lien foreclosure and breach of contract action against a property owner for whom it provided services. The panel rejected the property owner’s challenges to the validity and amount of the mechanic’s lien and upheld the trial court’s findings that the lien was not knowingly excessive. The court also affirmed the contract judgment, concluding that the parties’ proposal and work authorization are to be construed together and that the record supported the scope of work and the charges awarded. This decision allows Jim Black Construction to proceed toward foreclosure and enforcement upon issuance of the mandate, absent any further review.
Ryan A. Williams, Edward M. O'Brien and Gabrielle (Gabs) Lalonde
Daniel Coffman (Associate-Washington, DC), Anjali Das (Partner-Chicago, IL), David Ross (Partner-Washington, DC), Kim Viergever (Of Counsel-Denver, CO) and Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver, CO) obtained dismissal with prejudice of a federal data breach class action filed against a services vendor for mental health care providers in the District of Colorado. The case comprised eight consolidated class actions brought by 15 named plaintiffs that arose out of a ransomware incident that involved the personal information of almost 4.3 million individuals and included sensitive information such as health information and Social Security numbers. The court agreed that all of the named plaintiffs lack Article III standing, dissecting each of their alleged theories of harm and coming down on the side of the more reasoned courts that have found these types of theories fail to establish standing – public disclosure of private information, increased spam, diminution in value of PHI/PII, emotional distress and future harm. The court concluded that “Plaintiffs have failed to allege injuries in fact that are fairly traceable to the Defendants’ complained-of conduct,” and issued a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and closing the case.
Daniel R. Coffman, Anjali C. Das, David M. Ross, Kimberly Viergever and Ryan A. Williams
Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver, CO) and Laura Ellenberger (Of Counsel-Denver, CO) obtained summary judgment in a contract dispute matter brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiff, a salesperson hired by our client, a natural food products manufacturing company, alleged that he was entitled to commission payments following the termination of his services contract with our client. An offer letter stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a defined percentage of sales realized from client relationships he established. After termination of this contract, the plaintiff alleged entitlement to commission payments from this group of clients in perpetuity, arguing that the offer letter did not expressly state that commission payments were dependent on continued provision of services under the contract, but instead, were owed in perpetuity on any customers he generated for the client. Ryan and Laura filed for summary judgment, asking that the court determine, as a matter of law, that the offer letter could not reasonably be interpreted in this manner. The court agreed, finding that there was no evidence of a "meeting of the minds" on the duration of commission payments. As the prevailing party, the client is entitled to litigation costs.
Ryan A. Williams and Laura J. Ellenberger
Ryan Williams (Partner-Denver, CO) and Gabrielle Lalonde (Associate-Denver, CO) obtained a defense verdict following a four-day bench trial in Jefferson County, Colorado. The plaintiff, a homeowner, hired our client, a restoration contractor, to repair his home following an electrical fire. The plaintiff claimed our client promised completion by a certain date, which he denied. Upon initiation of repair work, our client discovered numerous latent conditions, including asbestos and structural defects, which greatly complicated the repair plan and required additional engineering and design efforts. As these initial issues approached resolution, the plaintiff elected to make additional changes to the design of the house, which necessitated further design and engineering changes. Following more than two years of effort by our client, the plaintiff fired him, claiming failure to timely complete the work and defects in the work performed to that point. Claims included negligence, breach of contract and fraud. Ryan and Gabrielle asserted claims arising out of the plaintiff's failure to pay for completed work. Following trial, the court entered an order denying all plaintiff’s claims and awarding our client more than 98 percent of the amount of damages sought and attorneys' fees pursuant to the parties' agreement.
Ryan A. Williams and Gabrielle (Gabs) Lalonde