Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023CV30276 - Higgins v. City of Fort Collins, et al. - 048 - Sunbelt Rentals Mot Summ J {01893694.1} DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: 201 La Porte Avenue, #100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 COURT USE ONLY _______________________ Case No. 23CV30276 Ctrm./Div. 4C Plaintiff: CHRISTIAN HIGGINS Defendants: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, C&L WATER SOLUTIONS, INC., SUNBELT RENTALS, INC., KODIAK FIELD SERVICES, LLC, and BCH SERVICES, LLC ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. Jamey W. Jamison, #10953 Dino G. Moncecchi, #45429 Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C. 10333 E. Dry Creek Road, Suite 300 Englewood, Colorado 80112 Phone: 720-875-9140 Fax: 720-875-9141 E-mail: jjamison@hkjp.com dmoncecchi@kjp.com DEFENDANT SUNBELT RENTALS INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS COMES NOW the Defendant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., appearing separate and apart from the other named Defendants herein, by and through their counsel, Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C., and for its Motion for Summary Judgment states as follows: Certificate of Conferral: Undersigend reached out to Plaintiff prior to filing the motion but at the time of filing did not receive a response, given the nature of the relief sought it is assumed that the relief is opposed. DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 2 INTRODUCTION On and before October 8, 2021, Defendant City of Fort Collins (hereinafter “COFC”) was conducting a utilities project which included a sewer line rehabilitation (the “Project”) located in Eldora Park at and near Welch Street. COFC contracted with Defendant C&L Water Solutions (hereinafter “C&L”) to complete the Project. SOUF ¶1. C&L scope of work included being the general contractor of the Project, including but not limited to bypass pumping and traffic control. SOUF ¶12. The Project required that a sewer bypass be installed. C&L contracted with Defendant Sunbelt Rentals Inc. (hereinafter “Sunbelt”) to provide sewer bypass services. Sunbelt contracted with Defendants Kodiak Field Services, LLC, (hereinafter “Kodiak”) and BCH Services, LLC (hereinafter “BCH”) to provide employees/laborers to monitor the bypass line and the Sunbelt pump truck during bypass operations. A sewer bypass is created by placing a bypass hose into a sewer manhole above the sewer line to be remediated, which is then connected to above ground piping that is continued to the next manhole below the sewer line remediation area. A sewer bypass hose is then connected to the end of the pipe and secured in the manhole. This allows city sewer services to continue to operate while portions of the sewer line are remediated. October 8, 2021, was a Friday. COFC required that sewer bypass lines be flushed before the weekend to ensure that above ground bypass lines did not contain sewer water. Therefore, COFC required that the sewer bypass line for the Project be flushed on the evening of October 8, 2021, after C&L completed its work for the day. C&L directed Sunbelt to flush the bypass line after C&L completed its work. Sunbelt relayed this request to Kodiak and BCH, who agreed to complete the flushing operations after C&L stopped work. 3 C&L completed its work at or about 8:30 p.m. on October 8, 2021. Prior to C&L leaving the jobsite Sunbelt advised C&L that access to a city water hydrant would be necessary in order to flush the bypass line. C&L submitted a permit request to COFC for access to a water hydrant on October 8, 2021. COFC designated which hydrant to be used. A COFC employee arrived at the work site and selected the water hydrant to be used. The COFC employee placed a meter on the hydrant and then chained the meter to the hydrant so it could not be moved. Either Kodiak or BCH advised the COFC that if the city’s designated hydrant would be used, a water hose would have to be run across Welch Street. As such and based on the directed work by COFC, Kodiak/BCH placed a 2 ½ inch water hose across Welch Street and connected it to the COFC designated fire hydrant. Sunbelt was not aware of which hydrant had been selected by COFC. PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS Plaintiff alleges that on October 8, 2021, she was riding her bicycle in the northbound vehicle lane at or near the 1700 block of Welch street. Am. Compl. ¶¶47-49. Plaintiff alleges she was unaware of the water hose stretched across Welch Street and that she struck the hose and was injured. Am. Compl. ¶¶50 and 58. Plaintiff alleges that water hose was a dangerous condition. Am. Compl. ¶¶24 and 89. Plaintiff alleges that Sunbelt was a landowner pursuant to C.R.S. §13-21-115. Am. Compl. ¶87. STANDARD OF REVIEW The purpose of summary judgment is to permit the parties to pierce the formal allegations of the pleadings and save the time and expense connected with trial when, as a matter of law, based on undisputed facts, one party could not prevail. Peterson v. Halsted, 829 P.2d 373, 375 (Colo. 1992). It is an important procedure designed to secure the just, speedy, and 4 inexpensive determination of every action. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986). Summary judgment is appropriately granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See C.R.C.P. 56(c). The party requesting summary judgment has the burden of establishing the non-existence of an issue of material fact. Cont’l Airlines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo. 1987). The moving party may satisfy this burden by demonstrating that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support the non-moving party’s case. See Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Pinder, 812 P.2d 645, 649 (Colo. 1991). Once the party moving for summary judgment has met the initial burden of showing there are no genuine issues of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to establish that there is a triable issue of fact. Han Ye Lee v. Colo. Times, Inc., 222 P.3d 957, 960 (Colo. App. 2009); McCormick v. Union Pac. Res. Co., 14 P.3d 346, 349 (Colo. 2000). If the non-moving party cannot demonstrate specific facts to establish a triable issue of fact on his claim, a trial would be useless, and the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. See Keenan, 731 P.2d at 713; A-1 Auto Repair & Detail, Inc. v. Bilunas-Hardy, 93 P.3d 598, 603 (Colo. App. 2004). The party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon mere allegations in the pleadings or argument of counsel, but the response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Sullivan v. Davis, 474 P.2d 218, 221 (Colo. 1970); Bilunas-Hardy, 93 P.3d at 603; C.R.C.P. 56(e). Although the party opposing summary judgment is entitled to the benefit of all favorable inferences that could be drawn from the facts presented, the moving party’s request must be granted where the facts are undisputed, and the opposing party cannot prevail as a matter of law. 5 American Water Dev., Inc. v. City of Alamosa, 874 P.2d 352, 360 (Colo. 1994). A genuine issue cannot arise simply by means of argument. Sullivan v. Davis, 474 P.2d 218, 221 (Colo. 1970). STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 1. C&L entered into a utilities project agreement with the City of Fort Collins. Exhibit C. 2. C&L was responsible for all permits, permission for site access, providing a water source for bypass flushing operations, and traffic control as required. Exhibit B – Affidavit of Erik Stesnby ¶4. 3. C&L directed Sunbelt to flush the bypass line after C&L completed its work on October 8, 2021. Exhibit B – ¶5. 4. Sunbelt relayed the C&L flushing request to Kodiak and BCH, who agreed to complete the flushing operations. Exhibit B – ¶6. 5. Sunbelt left the Project site at or before 5:30 p.m. Exhibit B – ¶7. 6. Sunbelt was not onsite when the COFC arrived and designated the fire hydrant to be used for the Friday night bypass flush. Exhibit B – ¶8. 7. Sunbelt was not informed of what hydrant was designated by COFC for the Friday night bypass flush. Exhibit B – ¶9. 8. Sunbelt was not advised that anyone had placed a water hose across Welch Street for the Friday night bypass flush. Exhibit B – ¶10. 9. Kodiak and BCH were responsible for conducting the Friday night bypass flushing operations. Exhibit B – ¶11. 6 10. Sunbelt did not have any employees onsite at the Project on or after 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2021. Exhibit B – ¶12. 11. As of 5:30 p.m. on October 8, 2021, the time the last Sunbelt employee left the Project site, no bypass flushing operations were taking place. Exhibit B – ¶13. 12. The C&L scope of work included being the general contractor of the Project, including but not limited to bypass pumping and traffic control. Exhibit C. 13. A C&L employee selected the water hydrant to be used and a COFC employee placed the meter on the hydrant and then chained the meter to the hydrant so it could not be moved. Exhibit H. 14. Kodiak and/or BCH placed a 2 ½ inch water hose across Welch Street and connected it to the COFC designated fire hydrant. 15. C&L left the jobsite at 8:30 p.m. Exhibit D. 16. Plaintiff was riding a bicycle in the motor vehicle lane of travel and not the designated bike lane. Exhibit E – Deposition of Christian Higgins 26:10-21. 17. Plaintiff normally rides in the designated bike lane. Exhibit E 49:18-23. 18. Plaintiff’s accident occurred at 9:00 p.m. Exhibit F. 19. C&L submitted a permit request for access to a water hydrant to COFC on October 8, 2021. Exhibit G. 20. Plaintiff alleges that on October 8, 2021, she was riding her bicycle in the northbound vehicle lane at or near the 1700 block of Welch street. Exhibit A - Am. Compl. ¶¶47-49. 7 21. Plaintiff alleges she was unaware of the water hose stretched across Welch Street and that she struck the hose and was injured. Exhibit A - Am. Compl. ¶¶50 and 58. 22. Plaintiff alleges that water hose was a dangerous condition. Exhibit A - Am. Compl. ¶¶24 and 89. 23. Plaintiff alleges that Sunbelt was a landowner pursuant to C.R.S. §13-21-115. Exhibit A - Am. Compl. ¶87. ARGUMENT A. Plaintiff’s Negligence Claim – Sixth Claim For Relief (Negligence – as Against All Defendants) Fails as a Matter ff Law. Plaintiff has alleged Sunbelt is a landowner under the Colorado Premises Liability Act CPLA. Am. Compl. ¶87. As such, Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy against Sunbelt is the CPLA and Plaintiff’s negligence claim must be dismissed as a matter of law. Pursuant to Colorado law, CPLA “sets forth when a landowner may be liable for the condition, or activities conducted on its property and provides for the exclusive remedy against a landowner for injuries sustained on the landowner’s property.” Henderson v. Master Klean Janitorial, Inc., 70 P.3d 612, 613 (Colo. App. 2003) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, the CPLA establishes exclusive duties owed by a statutory “landowner” to persons injured on the property. Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 328 (Colo. 2004). A Plaintiff can recover against a landowner only as provided under the statute and not under any common law theory. Wilson v. Marchiondo, 124 P.3d 837, 839-40 (Colo. App. 2005). In Vigil, the Colorado Supreme Court determined that the “express, unambiguous language of subsection (2) of Colorado’s Premises Liability Statute evidences the General Assembly’s intent to establish a comprehensive and exclusive specification of the duties’ 8 landowners owed to those injured on their property,” and that coupled with the precisely drawn landowner duties in subsection (3), this language “preempts prior common law theories of liability and establishes the statute as the sole codification of landowner duties in tort.” Vigil, 103 P.3d at 328. Notably, nowhere in Vigil does the court state that defendant must admit it is a landowner in order for the CPLA to apply. Rather, the court specifically states that “a landowner could even claim that he is not a landowner as defined in the statute, thereby owing no duty at all.” Id. at 330. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim sounding in negligence against Sunbelt must be dismissed as a matter of law. B. Plaintiff’s CPLA Claim Against Sunbelt Fails as The Dangerous Condition Was Not Created By Sunbelt. To qualify as a “landowner” under the PLA one must, at the time of the accident, be (1) an authorized agent or a person in possession of real property, or (2) a person legally responsible for the condition of real property or for the activities conducted on real property. See Land-Wells v. Rain Way Sprinkler and Landscape, LLC, 187 P.3d 1152, 1154 (Colo. App. 2008) (citing § 13-21-115(1), C.R.S. 2012). COFC owned the premises on which the Project work was being conducted, the location where Plaintiff’s accident occurred, and the location of the fire hydrant in which a water hose was connected. Sunbelt was tasked with flushing operations, and so arguably would be considered a “landowner.” Pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115(3): In any civil action brought against a landowner by a person who alleges injury occurring while on the real property of another and by reason of the condition of such property, or activities conducted or circumstances existing on such property, the landowner is liable only as provided in subsection (4) of this section . . . 9 … (b) A licensee may only recover damages caused: (I) By the landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care with respect to dangers created by the landowner that the landowner actually knew about; or (II) By the landowner’s unreasonable failure to warn of dangers not created by the landowner that are not ordinarily present on property of the type involved and that the landowner actually knew about. … (6) In any action to which this section applies, the court shall determine whether the plaintiff is a trespasser, a licensee, or an invitee, in accordance with the definitions set forth in subsection (7) of this section… … (7)(c) “Licensee” means a person who enters or remains on the land of another for the licensee’s own convenience or to advance the licensee’s own interests, pursuant to the landowner’s permission or consent. “Licensee” includes a social guest. … Plaintiff’s purpose for being on the property at the time of the injury impacts the Plaintiff’s status. Chapman v. Willey, 134 P.3d 568, 569 (Colo. App. 2006). Sunbelt’s duty to the Plaintiff is based on her classification/status on the particular part of the roadway as of October 8, 2021. Corder v. Folds, 292 P.3d 1177, 1178 (Colo. App. 2012). Plaintiff Cannot Establish Any of the Elements of Her Premises Liability Claim Burden of Proof Plaintiff is a licensee as to Sunbelt. Plaintiff bears the burden of proof to establish all of the elements of a CPLA claim against Sunbelt. As a licensee Plaintiff, must prove Sunbelt was 1) the “landowner” with respect to placing the water hose on Welch Street (controlled or 10 conducted activities on the premises); 2) that she was an not a licensee pursuant to the CPLA; 3) that Sunbelt actually created the danger and/or actually knew of the danger to the Plaintiff on the property (i.e., the water hose); and 4) that Sunbelt unreasonably failed to warn of a danger that Sunbelt actually knew about. C.R.S. §13-21-115(4)(c)(I), (7)(c). Plaintiff alleges that on October 8, 2021, she was riding her bicycle in the northbound vehicle lane at or near the 1700 block of Welch street. Am. Compl. ¶¶47-49. Plaintiff alleges she was unaware of the water hose stretched across Welch Street and that she struck the hose and was injured. Am. Compl. ¶¶50 and 58. Plaintiff alleges that water hose was a dangerous condition. Am. Compl. ¶¶24 and 89. Plaintiff alleges that Sunbelt was a landowner pursuant to C.R.S. §13-21-115. Am. Compl. ¶87. According to the explicit provisions of the CPLA, the statute was “enacted in 1986 to promote a state policy of responsibility by both landowners and those upon the land as well as to ensure that the ability of an injured party to recover is correlated with the injured party’s status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.” C.R.S. §13-21-115(2)(a) (2022). Since the CPLA applies to the present matter, Plaintiff cannot establish the basic elements of the same. Plaintiff is a Licensee Plaintiff was riding a bicycle in the motor vehicle lane of travel and not the designated bike lane. SOUF ¶16.1 Plaintiff normally rides her bike in the designed bike lane. SOUF ¶17. Bicyclists are requested, expected, and intended to enter or remain within the bicycle designated lanes. Because Plaintiff failed to remain in the area of the roadway designated for bicyclists, 1 Statement of Undisputed Facts. 11 Plaintiff remained on the roadway at her own convenience or to advance her own interests, pursuant to the COFC’s permission or consent. Alleged Dangerous Condition C&L directed Sunbelt to flush the bypass line after C&L completed its work on October 8, 2021. SOUF ¶3. Sunbelt relayed the flushing request to Kodiak and BCH, who agreed to complete the flushing operations. SOUF ¶4. Sunbelt left the Project site prior to 5:30 p.m. SOUF ¶5. C&L completed its work on or about 8:30 p.m. on October 8, 2021. SOUF ¶15. C&L submitted a permit request for access to a water hydrant to COFC on October 8, 2021. SOUF ¶19. A C&L employee selected the water hydrant to be used and a COFC employee placed the meter on the hydrant and then chained the meter to the hydrant so it could not be moved. SOUF ¶13. Kodiak/BCH placed a 2 ½ inch water hose across Welch Street and connected it to the COFC designated fire hydrant. SOUF ¶14. C&L was responsible for all traffic control permits and issues. SOUF ¶2. Plaintiff’s accident occurred after 9:00 p.m. on October 8, 2021. SOUF ¶18. Therefore, since Kodiak and BCH laid the hose across Welch Street, Sunbelt could not have created the alleged dangerous condition. Furthermore, Sunbelt was not aware of what fire hydrant COFC designated. Sunbelt did not have any knowledge that a hose would be placed across Welch Street. Finally, since Sunbelt was not at the premises at the time the hose was laid across the street, and/or in the hours before the Plaintiff’s accident, Sunbelt had no notice of and therefore could not warn Plaintiff of the alleged dangerous condition. 12 CONCLUSION Plaintiff is a licensee as she was not in an area that a bicyclist was requested, expected, and intended to enter or remain and therefore, Plaintiff was on the land at her own convenience or to advance her own interests. The condition on the roadway that is alleged to have been dangerous, which is denied by Sunbelt, the stretched hose, was created by COFC, Kodiak, and BCH, after Sunbelt left the premises. Sunbelt was never advised of the alleged dangerous condition prior to Plaintiff’s accident and therefore could not have created the condition, did not know of the condition , and could not have forewarned Plaintiff of the alleged condition. As such, Plaintiff’s CPLA claim against Sunbelt fails. Respectfully submitted this 22 day of April, 2024. Original signature on file at office of Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C. /s/ Jamey W. Jamison Jamey W. Jamison, #10953 Dino G. Moncecchi, #45429 HARRIS, KARSTAEDT, JAMISON & POWERS, P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR SUNBELT RENTALS 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this 22 day of April, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT SUNBELT RENTALS INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS was served via Colorado Courts E-filing addressed to the following: Karl W. Hager, Esq. VanMeveren Law Group, P.C. 123 N. College Avenue, Suite 112 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Attorneys for Plaintiff Clayton D. Manceaux, Esq. Resnick & Lous, P.C. 7900 E. Union Ave., Suite 1100 Denver, CO 80237 Attorneys for City of Fort Collins Arthur J. Kutzer, Esq. SGR, LLC 3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 700 Denver, CO 80210 Attorneys for BCH Services, LLC Scott A. Neckers, #43956 Sean T. Conrecode, #52864 Overturf McGath & Hull, P.C. 625 E. 16th Ave., Suite 100 Denver, CO 80203 Attorneys for Kodiak Field Services, LLC Jason H. Klein, Esq. Jay C. Jacobson, Esq. Mandy L. Neuman, Esq. Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP 1805 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 Attorneys for C&L Water Solutions, Inc. Original signature on file at office of Harris, Karstaedt, Jamison & Powers, P.C. /S/ C. Kentner 1 District Court, Larimer, Colorado 201 LaPorte Avenue, Ste 100 Fort Collins, CO 80521 Phone: (970) 498-6100 ↑ Court Use Only ↑ Christian Higgins Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Collins, C&L Water Solutions, Inc., Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., Kodiak Field Services, LLC, and BCH Services, LLC Defendants Karl W. Hager #52710 VanMeveren Law Group, P.C. 123 N College Avenue, Suite 112 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone (970) 495-9741 Fax (970) 495-6854 Email: khager@vanmeverenlaw.com Case No. 2023CV30276 Division: 4C PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Christian Higgins, by and through undersigned counsel, VanMeveren Law Group, P.C., Karl W. Hager appearing, and states as her First Amended Complaint against Defendants as follows: I. PARTIES 1. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff Christian Higgins (“HIGGINS”) was and is a private individual and resident of Larimer County, with a mailing address of 1440 Edora Road, Fort Collins, Colorado 80525. 2. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant City of Fort Collins (“the CITY”), was and is a home rule municipality of the State of Colorado, situated in Larimer County, with an official mailing address of P.O. Box 580, Fort Collins, Colorado 80522. The principal physical address of the CITY is 300 LaPorte Avenue, Building B, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521. DATE FILED: July 5, 2023 9:26 AM FILING ID: 86B48DDF5837B CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 EXHIBIT A DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 2 3. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant C&L Water Solutions, Inc. (“C&L”) was and is a corporation licensed to do business in Colorado with a principal office address of 112249 Mead Way, Littleton, Colorado 80125. The registered agent for C&L is Chrystalla Larson, with a mailing address of P.O. Box 631100, Littleton, Colorado 80163. 4. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (“SUNBELT”) was and is a foreign corporation with a principal office address of 1799 Innovation Point, Fort Mill, South Carolina 29715. SUNBELT is licensed to do business in Colorado and the registered agent is C T Corporation System with a mailing address of 7700 E Arapahoe Road, Suite 220, Centennial, Colorado 80112. 5. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant Kodiak Field Services, LLC (“KODIAK”) was and is a limited liability company with a principal office address of 1153 M1/4 Road, Loma, Colorado 81524. KODIAK is licensed to do business in Colorado and the registered agent is Colorado Registered Agent LLC with a mailing address of 1942 Broadway Street, Suite 314C, Boulder, Colorado 80302. 6. At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant BCH Services, LLC (“BCH”) was and is a limited liability company with a principal office address of 454 Eclipse Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905. BCH is licensed to do business in Colorado and the registered agent is Brandon Henry with a mailing address of 454 Eclipse Drive, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. Jurisdiction is appropriate in this Court pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-1-124. 8. Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 98(c). 9. HIGGINS complied with the jurisdictional notice requirement to the CITY under C.R.S. §24-10-109. 10. This Court has jurisdiction over the CITY because the CITY has waived immunity pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(d)(I), as set forth below. 11. This Court further has jurisdiction over the CITY because the CITY has waived immunity pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-10-106(1)(f), as set forth below. 12. The injuries suffered by HIGGINS are the direct result of a dangerous condition created by the CITY that physically impeded the flow of traffic. 13. The CITY’s duty to HIGGINS to keep the roads safe is non-delegable. EXHIBIT A 3 14. The CITY, through its subcontractors, stretched a five-inch fortified, pressurized hose (the “HOSE”) from a fire hydrant across Welch Street at night in a dimly light area thereby creating a dangerous condition. 15. The HOSE stretched across Welch Street impeded the flow of traffic of both cars and bicycles. 16. The HOSE stretched across Welch Street at night was a road condition that created a chance of injury, damage, or loss which exceeded the bounds of reason. 17. The HOSE stretched across Welch Street constituted an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public. 18. Plaintiff’s injuries are the result of a physical condition of a public facility. 19. The dangerous condition should have, and would have, been known by the CITY if the Defendants had exercised reasonable care. 20. The dangerous condition was proximately caused by the acts or omissions of the CITY through its independent contractors maintaining the roadway on Welch Street during sewage remediation. 21. It was reasonably foreseeable that: (a) cyclists such as HIGGINS would use the roadway at Welch Street at night, (b) it would be difficult for a cyclist to see the hose at night and (c) that serious injury, such as the injuries suffered by HIGGINS, could result from the dangerous condition. 22. The knowledge of the dangerous condition of the CITY’s subcontractor is imputed to the CITY. 23. The acts and omissions of the CITY’s subcontractors (the other Defendants) are imputed to the CITY. 24. Defendant Sunbelt created the dangerous condition. Because Sunbelt created the dangerous condition, it knew about it. However, Sunbelt, in derogation of its duties, failed to advise the other Defendants or traffic control about the dangerous condition it created. 25. The CITY knew or should have known of the dangerous condition due to its relationship with the Defendants and the contractual obligations in place at the time of the INCIDENT. 26. The HOSE was connected to a fire hydrant under the CITY’s control, operation and maintenance and was being used as part of a sewage remediation project which results in the operation and maintenance of a public water facility and sanitation facility as contemplated by C.R.S. § 10-24-106(1)(f). EXHIBIT A 4 27. “Operation” means the “act or omission of a public entity or public employee in the exercise and performance of the powers, duties and functions vested in them by law with respect to the purposes of any public power or sanitation facility.” 28. “Maintenance” is defined as “the act or omission of a public entity or public employee in keeping a facility in the same general state of repair or efficiency as initially constructed or in preserving a facility from decline or failure.” 29. The use of the hydrant and HOSE by Defendants was undertaken to keep a facility in the same general state of repair or efficiency as initially constructed and/or to preserve a facility from decline or failure. 30. Plaintiff’s injuries are also a result of the CITY’s operation and maintenance of a public water facility and/or a public sanitation facility. III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 31. At all times material to the allegations of this Complaint, the CITY owned, controlled and/or maintained Welch Street, the shared-use roadway located in Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. 32. Welch Street is located within the municipal limits of the CITY. 33. Prior to October 8, 2021 the CITY was engaged in a Utilities project (“Utilities Project”) which included rehabilitating a sewer line that runs underneath Spring Creek Trail, near Welch Street. 34. As part of said Utilities Project, the CITY contracted with C&L to perform sewer bypass services around the ongoing construction site. 35. On or before October 8, 2021, the CITY and C&L began carrying out remediation work connected to the sewage spill. 36. On or before October 8, 2021, The CITY and C&L subcontracted with SUNBELT, KODIAK and BCH (collectively, all “Defendants”) to assist in the aforementioned sewage remediation work. 37. Prior to October 8, 2021, in performing the sewage spill remediation, Defendants connected, or caused to be connected, a large, pressurized hose with an approximate 5-inch diameter to a fire hydrant in the 1700 block of Welch Street near Edora Park (the “HOSE”). The HOSE was laid completely across Welch Street. EXHIBIT A 5 38. On October 8, 2021 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the HOSE remained stretched completely across Welch Street in the roadway. 39. Upon information and belief, prior to October 8, 2021, during operation of the Utilities Project a bypass hose was dislodged from a nearby manhole and began spilling sewage into Spring Creek pond in or near Edora Park, adjacent to Welch Street. 40. On October 8, 2021 at approximately 9:00 p.m., Welch Street remained open and accessible to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. There were no warning signs, additional lighting or other traffic-control devices used to alert motorists, cyclists or pedestrians of the HOSE’s presence in the roadway. No alternate routes were suggested or made available. 41. Defendant C&L was required (a) to install traffic devices and relocate them as necessary, (b) continuously review and maintain all traffic control measures to assure that adequate provisions have been made for the safety of the public and workers, (c) supervise, inspect and direct the work performed on behalf of CITY, (d) to keep on the work site a “competent resident superintendent who will be C&L’s representative and shall have authority to act on behalf of C&L, (d) to protect the safety over persons or property, protecting them from damage, injury or loss, (e) to erect and maintain all necessary safeguards for safety and protection of the public, and (f) to designate a qualified and experienced safety representative at the site whose duties and responsibilities shall be the prevention of accidents and the maintaining and supervising of safety precautions and programs. 42. All of C&L’s and the other Defendants’ duties were the primary responsibility of the CITY and nondelegable. 43. The Defendants did not have a representative on site at the time the HOSE was left across the street at night. 44. No Defendant underwent remedial measures to advise the public of the risks due to the HOSE stretched across the street at night. 45. Defendants did not place signs or traffic control devices to alert the public of the dangerous condition. 46. The dangerous condition was unreasonable because subcontractor Defendant Sunbelt improperly failed to report the dangerous condition to traffic control or the other Defendants prior to the INCIDENT. 47. On October 8, 2021, HIGGINS was riding her bicycle (equipped with a helmet, taillight and headlight) northbound in the 1700 block of Welch Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. EXHIBIT A 6 48. As HIGGINS was traveling northbound on Welch Street, she was unaware of the presence of the HOSE stretched across the roadway, impeding the flow of traffic. HIGGINS encountered the HOSE and was unable to avoid it. 49. HIGGINS was able to raise her front wheel over the HOSE at the last instant, but her rear wheel came in contact with the HOSE and jumped her bicycle and body into the air. HIGGINS continued to grip her handlebars as her body came forcefully down onto the top tube of her bicycle while her feet contacted the roadway. She was violently whiplashed through her neck and back. HIGGINS bicycle continued traveling at an appreciable speed before losing complete control and crashing approximately 30 yards from the location of the HOSE. 50. HIGGINS was unaware of the presence of the HOSE in the roadway prior to the incident on October 8, 2021. 51. Welch Street and the HOSE running across Welch Street were located in an area which the Defendants, their employees, representatives or agents regularly accessed on or before October 8, 2021. 52. Defendants failed to post any warnings or other indicators of the presence of HOSE and failed to establish any traffic control devices in the area where the incident occurred prior to October 8, 2021. 53. The presence of the HOSE in the roadway constituted a physical condition of a public facility that physically interfered with the flow of traffic. 54. The presence of the HOSE in the roadway presented unreasonable risks to the health and safety of the public. 55. Leaving the HOSE stretched across the roadway on Welch Steet with no warnings, additional lighting, traffic control devices or other indicators created a foreseeable chance of injury , damage and/or loss which exceeded the bounds of reason. 56. All Defendants knew of the HOSE’s presence in the roadway or should have known of the HOSE’s presence in the roadway through the exercise of reasonable care. 57. The HOSE’s presence in the roadway, without any warnings or traffic control devices utilized, was proximately caused by the negligent act or omission of the Defendants in maintaining the roadway, Welch Street. 58. As a result of the incident, HIGGINS suffered serious, permanent bodily injury, including, but not limited to, damage/injury to her cervical spine, her ankles, her groin area, chest, right shoulder and both elbows, as well as injury to other areas of her body. EXHIBIT A 7 59. As a result of injuries sustained in the incident, HIGGINS required urgent medical care, diagnostic imaging throughout her body, treatment by orthopedic and spine specialists, physical therapy, chiropractic and massage therapy, mental health treatment, treatment from general practitioners and medication therapy. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the incident, HIGGINS sustained and will continue to sustain damages as more specifically alleged below. IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Premises Liability – as against the CITY) 61. HIGGINS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60 of this First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 62. At all times pertinent hereto, the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115 were in effect. 63. At all times pertinent hereto, the CITY owned, leased or otherwise legally occupied Welch Street where the incident occurred. 64. At all times pertinent hereto, the CITY controlled Welch Street where the incident occurred. 65. The CITY was a “landowner” of the area of Welch Street where the incident occurred as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 66. At all times pertinent hereto, HIGGINS was an invitee as that term is contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 67. The condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street was a dangerous condition on the roadway that physically interfered with the flow of traffic and presented an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to motorists, cyclists and others. 68. The CITY knew or should have known of the dangerous condition existing on the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred. 69. The CITY generally had a nondelegable duty to use reasonable care with respect to any danger it created on the roadway of Welch Street where the incident occurred of which it knew, its subcontractors knew, or it should have known. 70. The CITY unreasonably failed to use reasonable care with respect to the danger presented by the condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street, thereby exposing HIGGINS to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of physical injury or harm. 71. The CITY's conduct was an unreasonable failure to exercise care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known as contemplated by C.R. S. §13-21-115. EXHIBIT A 8 72. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of the CITY’s failure to exercise reasonable care in constructing, maintaining or managing the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred, as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115., include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. V. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Premises Liability – as against C&L) 73. HIGGINS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 74. At all times pertinent hereto, the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115 were in effect. 75. At all times pertinent hereto, C&L legally occupied or was in control of the circumstances existing at Welch Street where the incident occurred. 76. C&L was a “landowner” of the area of Welch Street where the incident occurred as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 77. At all times pertinent hereto, HIGGINS was an invitee as that term is contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 78. The condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street was a dangerous condition on the roadway that physically interfered with the flow of traffic and presented an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to motorists, cyclists and others. 79. C&L knew or should have known of the dangerous condition existing on the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred. EXHIBIT A 9 80. C&L generally had a duty to use reasonable care with respect to any danger on the roadway of Welch Street where the incident occurred of which it knew or should have known. 81. C&L unreasonably failed to use reasonable care with respect to the danger presented by the condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street, thereby exposing HIGGINS to an unreasonable risk of physical injury or harm. 82. C&L’s conduct was an unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known as contemplated by C.R. S. §13-21-115. 83. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of C&L’s failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining or managing the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred, as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115, include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. VI. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Premises Liability – as against SUNBELT) 84. HIGGINS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 83 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 85. At all times pertinent hereto, the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115 were in effect. 86. At all times pertinent hereto, SUNBELT legally occupied or was in control of the circumstances existing at Welch Street where the incident occurred. 87. SUNBELT was a “landowner” of the area of Welch Street where the incident occurred as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 88. At all times pertinent hereto, HIGGINS was an invitee as that term is contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. EXHIBIT A 10 89. The condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street was a dangerous condition on the roadway that physically interfered with the flow of traffic and presented an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to motorists, cyclists and others. 90. SUNBELT knew or should have known of the dangerous condition existing on the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred. 91. SUNBELT generally had a duty to use reasonable care with respect to any danger on the roadway of Welch Street where the incident occurred of which it knew or should have known. 92. SUNBELT unreasonably failed to use reasonable care with respect to the danger presented by the condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street, thereby exposing HIGGINS to an unreasonable risk of physical injury or harm. 93. SUNBELT’s conduct was an unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known as contemplated by C.R. S. §13- 21-115. 94. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of SUNBELT’s failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining or managing the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred, as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115, include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. VII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Premises Liability – as against KODIAK) 95. HIGGINS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 94 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 96. At all times pertinent hereto, the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115 were in effect. EXHIBIT A 11 97. At all times pertinent hereto, KODIAK legally occupied or was in control of the circumstances existing at Welch Street where the incident occurred. 98. KODIAK was a “landowner” of the area of Welch Street where the incident occurred as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 99. At all times pertinent hereto, HIGGINS was an invitee as that term is contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 100. The condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street was a dangerous condition on the roadway that physically interfered with the flow of traffic and presented an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to motorists, cyclists and others. 101. KODIAK knew or should have known of the dangerous condition existing on the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred. 102. KODIAK generally had a duty to use reasonable care with respect to any danger on the roadway of Welch Street where the incident occurred of which it knew or should have known. 103. KODIAK unreasonably failed to use reasonable care with respect to the danger presented by the condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street, thereby exposing HIGGINS to an unreasonable risk of physical injury or harm. 104. KODIAK’s conduct was an unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known as contemplated by C.R. S. §13-21-115. 105. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of KODIAK’s failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining or managing the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred, as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115, include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. EXHIBIT A 12 VIII. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Premises Liability – as against BCH) 106. HIGGINS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 105 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 107. At all times pertinent hereto, the provisions of C.R.S. §13-21-115 were in effect. 108. At all times pertinent hereto, BCH legally occupied or was in control of the circumstances existing at Welch Street where the incident occurred. 109. BCH was a “landowner” of the area of Welch Street where the incident occurred as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 110. At all times pertinent hereto, HIGGINS was an invitee as that term is contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115. 111. The condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street was a dangerous condition on the roadway that physically interfered with the flow of traffic and presented an unreasonable risk of harm and injury to motorists, cyclists and others. 112. BCH knew or should have known of the dangerous condition existing on the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred. 113. BCH generally had a duty to use reasonable care with respect to any danger on the roadway of Welch Street where the incident occurred of which it knew or should have known. 114. BCH unreasonably failed to use reasonable care with respect to the danger presented by the condition and existence of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street, thereby exposing HIGGINS to an unreasonable risk of physical injury or harm. 115. BCH’s conduct was an unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known as contemplated by C.R. S. §13- 21-115. 116. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of BCH’s failure to exercise reasonable care in maintaining or managing the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred, as contemplated by C.R.S. §13-21-115, include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; EXHIBIT A 13 c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. IX. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence – as against all Defendants) 117. HIGGINS repeats and repleads the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 116 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 118. The Defendants owed a duty to HIGGINS to exercise reasonable care to protect her from dangers of which they knew or reasonably should have known. 119. At the date and location described above, the Defendants breached their respective duties of care. 120. The Defendants caused the HOSE to be present in the roadway on Welch Street where the incident occurred and failed to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition. 121. Defendants failed to provide any warnings of the HOSE’s presence in the roadway and failed to institute any traffic control devices or other protective measures. 122. Defendants allowed the HOSE to remain stretched across the roadway with no warning signs or other indicators of its presence and created an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists, cyclists and others by doing so. 123. The dangerous condition of the HOSE in the roadway on Welch Street caused harm to HIGGINS. 124. HIGGINS’ damages suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligence include but are not limited to: a. severe physical injuries; b. past and future medical expenses; c. past and future pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress; d. past and future loss of the normal pursuits and pleasures in life; EXHIBIT A 14 e. permanent physical impairment, disability, injury and disfigurement; f. past wage loss; and g. other compensatory damages, including property damage. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment in her favor and against Defendants for the special and general damages she sustained, including, but not limited to, past and future health care expenses, past and future pain and suffering, permanent impairment, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, past and future wage loss, pre and post judgment interest, expert witness fees, costs, consequential damages, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. VI. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury of six persons of all issues so triable and submits the required jury fees with the Complaint. Dated this 29th day of June 2023. VANMEVEREN LAW GROUP, P.C. _s/ Karl W. Hager_____________ Karl W. Hager - #52710 123 North College Avenue, Ste 112 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 495-9741 Facsimile: (970) 495-6854 Plaintiff’s Address: Christian Higgins 1440 Edora Road Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 EXHIBIT A 15 CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC FILING AND SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 29, 2023 the foregoing First Amended Complaint was filed with the Court and served on all counsel of record via ICCES according to the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure. /s/ Amy Selcke Amy Selcke Legal Assistant, VanMeveren Law Group, P.C. EXHIBIT A C&L WATER 000249 CITIZEN CLAIM FORM City Ilins 04/26/1973Name:Date of Birth: Claimant Address 2P Email:Phone: Name:Phone: Address: Street aty Slate 3p 9:15DateoftheIncident:Time- Address: How was the City negligent? Name,address,and phone number of any public employee invoked,if known: Name:Phone: Address: Street Oty State ap 970.443.7939 samePhone(home):Phone (work): Year:Make:Model:License#: Driver's Name:Driver's License #: Describe Damage: Driver’s Name:Department: Estimated Damage:$Police Report # 01/21/2022Date: ORj^cgov com OR Reused:5/3012017 C&L WATER 000249 CLAIM INFORMATION BODILY INJURY CLAIMS MOTOR VEHICLE CLAIMS PROPERTY DAMAGE SIGNATURE (Required) Type of Property Damaged (ie:building,equipment,etc ): Describe damage: Estimated Damage:$ Citizen Vehicle: Attorney: (if applicable) Name of Injured: Nature of the Injury:, Estimated Damage:$ Driver’s Phone (home): Insurance Co: return completed forms and documentation to: CITY OF FORT COLLI NS SAFETY,SECURITY &RISK MANAGEMENT 215 NORTH MASON STREET,2"D FLOOR FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 80525 Driver’s Phone (work). Insurance Phone: Mail to:CITY OF FORT COLLINS,SAFETY.SECUR TY.8 RISK MANAGEMENT P.O BOX 580 FORT COLLINS.CO 80522-0580 City Vehicle: Brief description of the incident: There was nothing to indicate that it was there and the color of the hose blended in with the street color. Slate queanpea8@yahoo.com Christian Higgins sprain,contusions,whip lash Concise statement of the basis of the claim: 10/08/2021 Month Day Year Welch Street and Edora Park Fort Collins CO 80525 Street City State a p I wM riding my bik*ncrti On Strt*L TMrt wM •prtMuriz*)Art !»*•running V*that I wM unatta to avoid.I Ht II going 20MPH and crubad Injuring many parts of my body. Fort Collins CO 80525 City NAME Af©ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT AND ATTORNEY IF ANY: Christian Higgins 1440 Edora Road Street 970.443.7939 /Rnjdrelfrc (DO NOT USE FOR WORK RELATED INJURIES/EXPOSURES)Authority NOTICE REQUIRED:Any person claiming to have suffered an injury or property damage by a public entity or by an employee thereof,while the course of their employment,shall file a written notice as provided by the COLORADO REVISED STATLfTES,Section 24-10-109,within one hundred eighty two (182)days after the date if the discovery of the injury or damage I understand that submitting this claim form does not signify an admission of liability by the City of Fort Collins orPoudre Fire Authority. [/]By checking this box and typing my name below,I am electronically signing this claim form Signature Christion Higgins SSrSSaiji'ittOTjee/w1 Email this form to: EXHIBIT F - C&L 249 DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 EXHIBIT H Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone The hydrant on Welch works great.Is there a time that works on Thursday or Friday this week? <image001.png> MAINTENANCE TRENCHLESS •EXCAVATION From:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bogar(5)clwsi.com> Sent:Tuesday,October 5,2021 1:27 PM To:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT(a)fcgov.com> Cc:Tracy Stenger <Tracv.Stenger(5)clwsi.com> From:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT@fcgov.com> Sent:Tuesday,October 5,2021 3:04 PM To:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bogar(a)clwsi.com> Subject:Re:Edora Park Hydrant Meter C &L WATER 000974 EXHIBIT H Emily Bogar Project Coordinator LOVE our work -LIVE for others -LEAD with heart 12249 Mead Way Littleton,CO 80125 (303)791-2521 Office (720)480-4557 Mobile Emily.Bogar@clwsi.com www.clwsi.com Original message - From:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bo gar@clwsi.com> Date:10/5/21 4:31 PM (GMT-07:00) To:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT@fcgov.com> Cc:Tracy Stenger <Tracy.Stengcr@clwsi.conL> Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:Edora Park Hydrant Meter There's a hydrant on Welch St.,E.Stuart St.,or Riverside Ave.Nothing inside the park itself that belongs to us. Lindy Westcott CWP Water Field Operations Crew Chief lwestcott@fcgov.com Office :970-221-6234 700 Wood St,Ft.Collins,Co.,80522 DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 In The Matter of: CHRISTIAN HIGGINS vs CITY OF FORT COLLINS,et al. CHRISTIAN HIGGINS March 28,2024 Hansen Reid HANSEN REID,LTD. In The Matter of: CHRISTIAN HIGGINS vs CITY OF FORT COLLINS, et al. CHRISTIAN HIGGINS March 28, 2024 HANSEN REID, LTD. DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 Page 26 ·1· · · · Q.· ·You've never been in a bike wreck? ·2· · · · A.· ·I don't think I've ever been in a bicycle ·3· ·accident, no. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you ride mountain bikes? ·5· · · · A.· ·No. ·6· · · · Q.· ·You've never had any bike wreck in your life ·7· ·that you recall? ·8· · · · A.· ·I don't think so.· I... ·9· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I'm going to share my screen again. 10· · · · · · ·Is this -- were you riding in the bike lane 11· ·or on the sidewalk? 12· · · · A.· ·I was riding in the road. 13· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you weren't in the bike lane?· You 14· ·were on the road? 15· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· A little to the -- like on the -- 16· ·close to the line in the road. 17· · · · Q.· ·So you're between the double yellow lines and 18· ·the single white line in the road? 19· · · · A.· ·Close to the white line. 20· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· But not in the bike lane? 21· · · · A.· ·No, not at that point. 22· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Can I ask you why?· Why were you not 23· ·riding in the bike lane? 24· · · · A.· ·I don't recall. 25· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So is this photo taken facing north or EXHIBIT E - Higgins 26:10-21 CHRISTIAN HIGGINS - 03/28/2024 Hansen Reid, Ltd. office@hansenreid.com CHRISTIAN HIGGINS - 03/28/2024 Hansen Reid, Ltd. office@hansenreid.com YVer1f Page 49 ·1· · · · Q.· ·So prior to 2004? ·2· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·3· · · · Q.· ·Was it a triathlon or just a bike ride? ·4· · · · A.· ·Just a bike ride. ·5· · · · Q.· ·Have you ever done long distance, like ·6· ·overnight touring, on a bike? ·7· · · · A.· ·No, sir. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· So you would you say collecting bikes ·9· ·is a hobby?· Like, how many bikes did you have at the 10· ·time of the accident again? 11· · · · A.· ·I mean, probably 11. 12· · · · Q.· ·Okay. 13· · · · A.· ·I've owned -- I -- 14· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And do you typically ride on the 15· ·street in the road? 16· · · · A.· ·It depends on what is legal.· So it depends 17· ·on -- 18· · · · Q.· ·So would you -- if you had an option of 19· ·riding in a road, a bike lane on the sidewalk, would 20· ·you normally ride in the road? 21· · · · A.· ·No.· I would normally ride in the bike lane 22· ·if it was clean, if it looked like there wasn't a lot 23· ·of debris coming up or things like that. 24· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And when you ride on the street, what 25· ·side of the street do you normally ride on?· With the CHRISTIAN HIGGINS - 03/28/2024 Hansen Reid, Ltd. office@hansenreid.com CHRISTIAN HIGGINS - 03/28/2024 Hansen Reid, Ltd. office@hansenreid.com YVer1f COFC-000448 SERVED ONLY: April 4, 2024 11:15 PM FILING ID: FDB752103C527 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 I J4 Attn. Phone #: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact Person InformationFeesandCharges Daily rental of hydrant meter and fittings $4.V(M>per tripRegulartripstoset,move,and pickup meter $1336 per 1000 gallons CommentsWaterused G/DHydrantwrench(If not returned) 1“Hydrant wrench issued ¥Size of meter 2"VMeter# U-trcrt-ctCCustomerInitials: Customer Initials:Final Meter Reading Comments:_ - Signature z 21 Revised:1 1/22 19 COFC-000448 Requests for hydrant meters should be received a minmum of two working days before the time needed.Th.s request should include Date time to be set,location,contact person name and phone number,and size of meter.The Utility will determine on a case by case bas s whether a particular hydrant is acceptable to install the meter on.If it is unacceotab e for a meter a different hydrant will be suggested,if the meter renta exceeds 90 days,the meter will field tested and recertified or swapped out.Upon swapping out a meter,a final reading will be gathered,and a b.l generated for the water used up to this point. On the day the meter is scheduled to be set,the Utility personnel will meet with the contact person at the designated fire hydrant.The Utility personnel wilt explain proper use of equipment and review the customer's responsibilities while the meter is in their possession. iqot tfioM ^-0 Utility personnel will install the meter assembly on the hydrant.The customer will control flow of water from the valve on the meter assembly (Not from the hydrant).The hydrant must remain in a fully open or fully closed position at all times.The customer is responsible for securing this va ve and for turning off the hydrant with the wrench provided.Any damage to the hydrant or the meter assembly will be charged to the customer. Utilities electric -stormwater •wastewater •water 222 Laporte Avenue - PO Box 580 Fort Collins CO 80522 --st As ire Company Representat ve.have read and rece ved the aoove stated hydrant meter pone es and guide nes Print Name:( Billing Information Company:L UJ -SO 1 -^2, Name Phone # By taking possession of the meter,the customer assumes full responsibility for appropriate use and safekeeping of the hydrant and meter assembly. ‘When it appears that a hydrant has become frozen or has been illegally operated,'the customer will be charged for a complete hydrant tear down,and meter assembly to determine the extent of the damages.The customer will be responsible for all replacement part costs which will be included in their final bill. .0 /VC / Location of hydrant requested for metering:I f fl- OvbGr dW TO ft - SK.60 per day lOWlMZlz Forfbollins ate enterec /Q2;Z5jlZ/jrk Order =Emolcyee entering data /c -1 3 -z f —(vvo ven hbw_-bo K(O ®1 Jo/* Date Insta'ed /&Q Initial Meter Read ng Date Removed b of trips to s t?’2--Date Bill was printed/^ 970.221.2900 970 221 6619 -fax V/TDD 71 1 utilities Q fegov com fegev com/utilities Hvdrant Meter Rental Pp^'"’ONLY:APril 4’2024 11:15 PMnvoraniivieierKenairfilingID:FDB752103C527 Guideline and ProcedurecASE NUMBER:2023CV30276 Date:/g-gz| Hydrant IDS IO L N tl EXHIBIT G DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 EXHIBIT H Sent from my Verizon,Samsung Galaxy smartphone The hydrant on Welch works great.Is there a time that works on Thursday or Friday this week? <image001.png> MAINTENANCE TRENCHLESS •EXCAVATION From:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bogar(5)clwsi.com> Sent:Tuesday,October 5,2021 1:27 PM To:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT(a)fcgov.com> Cc:Tracy Stenger <Tracv.Stenger(5)clwsi.com> From:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT@fcgov.com> Sent:Tuesday,October 5,2021 3:04 PM To:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bogar(a)clwsi.com> Subject:Re:Edora Park Hydrant Meter C &L WATER 000974 EXHIBIT H Emily Bogar Project Coordinator LOVE our work -LIVE for others -LEAD with heart 12249 Mead Way Littleton,CO 80125 (303)791-2521 Office (720)480-4557 Mobile Emily.Bogar@clwsi.com www.clwsi.com Original message - From:Emily Bogar <Emily.Bo gar@clwsi.com> Date:10/5/21 4:31 PM (GMT-07:00) To:Lindy Westcott <LWESTCOTT@fcgov.com> Cc:Tracy Stenger <Tracy.Stengcr@clwsi.conL> Subject:[EXTERNAL]RE:Edora Park Hydrant Meter There's a hydrant on Welch St.,E.Stuart St.,or Riverside Ave.Nothing inside the park itself that belongs to us. Lindy Westcott CWP Water Field Operations Crew Chief lwestcott@fcgov.com Office :970-221-6234 700 Wood St,Ft.Collins,Co.,80522 DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 C&L WATER 000290 1 10-8-2021 -Incident Print Name:„ 5-1 1Signature: Notary Signatured 4 www.clwsi.com C&L WATER 000290 — S-ll-Joax r*—*- 1 1 78 West 1 7th Street,Marriott-Slaterville,UT 84404 303 791.2521 phone 303.791 .2524 fax 12249 Mead Way,Littleton,CO 80125 303 791 2521 phone 303 791 .2524 fax C&L WATER SOLUTIONS (?(g?' Commission Expires On We started the day at 6:00 AM,at the Boxelder Sanitation Yard -2505 Frontage Rd, Fort Collins CO,80525.We loaded up our equipment and got the trucks started,we then did a safety meeting and went over what our day would look like.We left at 7:15 am and mobilized to the jobsite.We got on-site at 7:30 am and set up for lining at the southeast crossroads of Welch Street and Prospect Rd,in the park.We talked to our subcontractor,Sunbelt and went over with them what our plan was for the day.Sunbelt had 2 guys in charge of bypass.1 guy to watch the pumps and 1 guy to walk the lines.We started the process of lining,plugged the sewer lines,jetted the line that we were lining and put the camera in to complete the inspection,pulled the camera out after the inspection was complete and we were about to pull the glide foil in.One of the guys from Sunbelt came running over to the C&L crew,saying that he was having an issue with his hose.We pulled the plugs out so that he could shut the pumps off.This was around 9:00 AM.I walked the discharge line with him,and the end of the hose was out of the hole and pumping into the creek.I helped him get the discharge stinger back in the manhole,put the reach lift boom on top of the 90 so that it wouldn’t blow out again.Work was stopped until further notice to have the city and others come out to look at the damage.Work was stopped from 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM.Worked commenced,we started over and continued the lining process at 1:00 PM.I told Sunbelt that they needed to keep a close eye on this setup.I then went to check on the guy at the pumps and he was sleeping in his truck at 3:30 PM.1 took a picture,proceeded to wake him up and expressed to him that he cannot be sleeping on the job,especially after what had happened that morning,that it was very important to be alert and watchful when watching bypass.We then continued with the lining.We started curing the line at 4:47 PM and it was complete at 6:17 PM.We pulled the bypass plugs at 8:00 PM and 8:15 PM.We loaded up our equipment and left the jobsite at 8:30 PM and got to Boxelder’s yard at 8:45 PM.We unloaded our equipment,took the lining box off the truck,put samples in a box, parked all our trucks,clocked out and left the yard @ 9:30 PM Project Foreman J C /yrz Sco4^Sex ia Print Name: x Rachelle riggins XA Notary Pu t>j tc.State of Utah y!l Commission #71 5899 r .) _December 23.2024 EXHIBIT D - C&L 290 DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 Plaintiff:CHRISTIAN HIGGINS Defendants: A COURT USE ONLY A Case No.23CV30276 Ctrm./Div.4C AFFIDAVIT OF ERIK STENSBY COMES NOW the Affiant,Erik Stensby,after having been duly sworn,and states as follows for her Affidavit: That I am at least 18 years of age,and am competent to testify,have personal1. knowledge of the facts contained herein,and are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I am employed with Sunbelt Rentals Inc.,and was so on and before October 8,2. 2021. I was the Project Manager for Sunbelt for the Utilities Project as defined by3. Plaintiff in her Complaint. (01893694.1 } DISTRICT COURT,COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO CITY OF FORT COLLINS,C&L WATER SOLUTIONS,INC.,SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.,KODIAK FIELD SERVICES,LLC,and BCH SERVICES,LLC Court Address:20 1 La Porte Avenue,#100 Fort Collins,CO 80521 720-875-9140 720-875-9141 jj amison@hkj p .com dmoncecchi@kj p .com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT SUNBELT RENTALS,INC. Jamey W.Jamison,#10953 Dino G.Moncecchi,#45429 Harris,Karstaedt,Jamison &Powers,P.C. 10333 E.Dry Creek Road,Suite 300 Englewood,Colorado 801 12 Phone: Fax: E-mail: EXHIBIT B DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 C&L was responsible for all permits,permission for site access,providing a water4. source for bypass flushing operations,and traffic control as required. C&L directed Sunbelt to flush the bypass line after C&L completed its work on5. October 8,2021. Sunbelt relayed the C&L flushing request to Kodiak and BCH,who agreed to6. complete the flushing operations. Sunbelt left the job site at or before 5:30 p.m.7. Sunbelt was not onsite when the COFC arrived and designated the fire hydrant to8. be used for the Friday night bypass flush. designated by COFC for the9. Friday night bypass flush. Sunbelt was not advised that anyone had placed a water hose across Welch Street10. for the Friday night bypass flush. Kodiak and BCH were responsible for conducting the Friday night bypass11. flushing operations. Sunbelt did not have any employees onsite at the Project on or after 5:30 p.m.on12. October 8,2021. As of 5:30 p.m.on October 8,2021,the time the last Sunbelt employee left the13. Project site,no bypass flushing operations were taking place. {01 893694.1}2 Sunbelt was not informed of what hydrant was EXHIBIT B Respectfully submitted this 22 day of April,2024. Signature {01893694.1 }3 I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Colorado that the foregoing is true and correct. Z^/~1 k Name EXHIBIT B COFC-00212 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 SPRING CREEK AT EDORA WW CIPP C &L Water SolutionsCONTRACTOR: FORT COLLINS UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION WORK ORDER Utilities Work Order -Construction Form Page 1 of 34 WORK ORDER NO.2021-07 C+L SPRING CREEK CIPP WORK ORDER DATE:JULY 26,2021 Forfcpllins Forfbollins Official Purchasing Form zn Last updated 10/2017 V COFC-00212 DATE FILED: April 22, 2024 5:18 PM FILING ID: 50A704E0B5E68 CASE NUMBER: 2023CV30276 COFC-00213 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D6Q4266A14 TABLE OF CONTENTS AGREEMENT FORMS 00525 Work Order,Notice of Award &Bid Schedule 00530 Work Order Notice to Proceed 00600 Bonds and Certificates 00610 Performance Bond 00615 Payment Bond 00630 Certificate of Insurance Certificate of Substantial Completion00635 Certificate of Final Acceptance00640 00650 Lien Waiver Release (CONTRACTOR) Lien Waiver Release (SUBCONTRACTOR)00651 00660 Consent of Surety Application for Exemption Certificate00670 Supplementary Conditions00800 Addenda,Modifications and Payment00900 Work Order Change Order Form00950 Application for Payment00960 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Attachment A DRAWING INDEX Utilities Work Order -Construction Form Page 2 of 34 Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 COFC-00213 ForfcoUins mi I COFC-00214 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 SECTION 00500 CONSTRUCTION WORK ORDER AGREEMENT FORMS 00525 Work Order,Notice of Award &Bid Schedule 00530 Work Order Notice to Proceed Utilities Work Order-Construction Form Page 3 of 34 Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/201 7 \ COFC-00214 Forfbollins COFC-00215 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 TO: WORK ORDER NUMBER: Spring Creek at Edora WW CIPPPROJECTTITLE: ORIGINAL BID/RFP NUMBER &NAME:8847 Cured-ln-Place Pipe. MASTER AGREEMENT EFFECTIVE DATE:October 14,2019 ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: OWNER’S REPRESENTATIVE: WORK ORDER COMMENCEMENT DATE:July 26,2021 OWNER: 1. 2. 3. 4. er? COFC-00215 Utilities Work Order -Construction Form Page 4 of 34 MAXIMUM FEE:(time and reimbursable direct costs):$670,332.00 NOTICE OF AWARD DATE:July 26,2021 City of Fort Collins (hereinafter referred to as OWNER) SECTION 00525 WORK ORDER,NOTICE OF AWARD AND BID SCHEDULE LIQUIDATED DAMAGES.OWNER and CONTRACTOR recognize that time is of the essence of this Work Order and that OWNER will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the times specified in paragraph 3 above,plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with Article 12 of the General Conditions.They also recognize the delays,expenses and difficulties involved in proving in a legal proceeding the actual loss suffered by OWNER if the Work is not completed on time.Accordingly instead of requiring any such proof,OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as penalty)CONTACTOR shall pay OWNER the amounts set forth hereafter. NA Sandra Bratlie Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 CONTRACT TIMES.Pursuant to the MASTER AGREEMENT and the Work Order Documents,the date for Substantial Completion of this Work Order is November 3,2021, and after Substantial Completion,the expected date for Final Completion is December 31, 2021. CONTRACT PRICE,BONDS AND CERTIFICATES.The price of your Work Order is six hundred seventy thousand three hundred thirty-two dollars and zero cents ($670,332.00). Pursuant to the AGREEMENT and the Work Order Documents,Performance and Payment Bonds and insurance are required. C &L Water Solutions 2021-07 C+L Spring Creek CIPP PROJECT DESCRIPTION &SITE LOCATION:C &L will perform UV cured in place pipe lining of approximately 3,400 LF of 24"&30”Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP)in the Spring Creek trunk lines near Edora Park.Work includes bypass pumping,traffic control,additional system cleaning,and contingency.See attached supporting documentation Forfcpllins WORK.Pursuant to your MASTER AGREEMENT with OWNER dated October 14,2019, and your Work Order Proposal dated June 15,2021,you have been awarded a Work Order for Spring Creek at Edora WW CIPP. COFC-00216 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 Utilities Work Order -Construction Form Page 5 of 34 6.EXECUTION.Work Order Documents must be executed in DocuSign within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of this Notice of Award.Contractor shall attach Payment and Performance Bonds and Certificate of Insurance(COI)to the Work Order Documents in DocuSign.In addition,one original set of executed Bonds and COI shall be provided to the Buyer. Upon Final Completion and Acceptance of the Work in accordance with paragraph 14.13 of the General Conditions,OWNER shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as provided in said paragraph 14.13. Failure to comply with these conditions within the time specified will entitle OWNER to consider your Work Order Proposal abandoned and to annul this Work Order &Notice of Award. PROGRESS PAYMENTS.OWNER shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR'S Application for Payment,once each month during construction as provided below.All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the Work measured by the schedule of values established in paragraph 2.6 of the General Conditions and in the case of Unit Price Work based on the number of units completed,and in accordance with the General Requirements concerning Unit Price Work. Prior to Substantial Completion,Owner will be entitled to withhold as contract retainage five percent (5%)of each progress payment,but,in each case,less the aggregate of payments previously made and less such amounts as OWNER may withhold,in accordance with paragraph 14.7 of the General Conditions.If,in the sole discretion of Owner,Owner determines that the character and progress of the Work have been satisfactory to OWNER,OWNER may determine that as long as the character and progress of the Work remain satisfactory to them,there will be no additional retainage on account of Work completed in which case the remaining progress payments prior to Substantial Completion will be in an amount equal to 100%of the Work completed.95%of materials and equipment not incorporated in the Work (but delivered,suitably stored and accompanied by documentation satisfactory to OWNER as provided in paragraph 14.2 of the General Conditions) may be included in the application Section 00960. Upon Substantial Completion payment will be made in an amount sufficient,if necessary,to increase total payments to CONTRACTOR to 95%of the Contract Price,less such amounts as OWNER may withhold in accordance with paragraph 14.7 of the General Conditions or as provided by law. 2)Final Acceptance:After Substantial Completion,two hundred dollars and zero cents ($200.00)for each calendar day or fraction thereof after 58 days,until the Work is ready for Final Payment and Acceptance. 1)Substantial Completion:five hundred dollars and zero cents ($500.00)for each calendar day or fraction thereof after November 3,2021,until the work is Substantially Complete. 5.PAYMENT PROCEDURES.CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Article 14 of the General Conditions.Applications for Payment will be processed by OWNER. ^rfCollins 1 —in I Official Purchasing Form ft Last updated 10/2017 X COFC-00216 COFC-00217 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D6G4266A14 CONTRACTOR’S NOTICE OF AWARD REPRESENTATION &EXECUTION: CONTRACTOR:C &L Water Solutions August 3,2021By:Date: chief operations OfficerTitle:Name: Utilities Work Order-Construction Form Page 6 of 34 COFC-00217 CONTRACTOR agrees to perform the services identified above,in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein,the MASTER AGREEMENT,and the NOTICE OF AWARD between the parties.In the event of a conflict between or ambiguity in the terms of the MASTER AGREEMENT or specific Work Orders,the MASTER AGREEMENT shall control. Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 s-—DocuSigned by: >F1 8GGCA1S4AF447 Chris Larson ForfeoUlns COFC-00218 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CE86-A127-4C73-8DDO-BOD604266A14 ACCEPTANCE: August 3,2021 REVIEWED:Date: August 3,2021ACCEPTANCE: August 3,2021Date:ACCEPTANCE: Date:ACCEPTANCE: Date:ATTEST: Utilities Work Order -Construction Form Page 7 of 34 Darin Atteberry,City Manager (if greater than $1,000,000) City Clerk (if greater than $1 ,000,000) Official Purchasing Form Last updater)10/2017 COFC-00218 s'—Do cu Signed by: S.fW GeFFy^aalf^etchasing Director (if greater than $60,000) DocuSIgned by: PaUlateaafi^sSenior Buyer OWNER’S ACCEPTANCE &EXECUTION: This Work Order and the attached Documents are hereby accepted and incorporated herein by this reference. REQUISITION ENTERED BY:Date: Melissa Walker,Finance Coordinator Doc u Signed by: -Lbj.'gwu Date:3,2021 SemdrePwertheyoSpecial Projects Manager,Utilities Distribution Systems DocuSigntd by: _Date: Aiwewtfiiagewch,Director,Water Field O perations ForfeoUlns COFC-00219 DocuSign Envelope ID:94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 BID SCHEDULE Utilities Work Order-Construction Form Page 8 of 34 COFC-00219 Official Purchasing Form Last updated 10/2017 ForfcoUlns COFC-00220 DocuSign Envelope ID;94F2CEB6-A127-4C73-8DD0-B0D604266A14 PROPOSAL 1 wvAv.clwsi.com Page 9 of 34 COFC-00220 DATE:June 15,2021 CUSTOMER NAME:City of Fort Collins ATTN:Ray Fisher JOB NAME:2020 CIPP Project 12249 Mead Way,Littleton,CO 80125 303.791.2521 phone 303.791 .2524 fax 1 1 78 West 1 7th Street,Marriott-Slaterville,LIT 84404 303.791 .2521 phone 303.791 .2524 fax C&L DESCRIPTION Bypass Pumping -12"Pumps with 12"Suction &Discharge 2 Traffic Control 3 24"CIPP x 4mm 4 30"CIPP x 5mm 5 Service Reinstatements 6 Intruding Tap Removal 7 Additional System Cleaning 8 Contingency (Landscape Replacement) UNIT PRICE $71,735.00 $18,395.00 $146.00 $239.00 $125.00 $125.00 $13,145.00 $30,000.00 TOTAL $71,735.00 $18,395.00 $435,372.00 $99,185.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $13,145.00 $30,000.00 $670,332.00 NOTES: Pricing,Inclusions and Exclusions are based on the RFP 8847 Cured in Place Pipe Pricing,excludes any pipe which is collapsed or should not be lined due to condition. QUANTITY 1 1 2982 415 10 10 1 1 UNIT LS LS ' LF LF ' EA ' EA LS ' LS TOTAL