Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021CV30470 - City Of Fort Collins V. American Civil Constructors, Inc. And American Civil Constructors, Llc - 010 - Acc AnswerPage 1 of 4 DISTRICT COURT, LARIMER COUNTY STATE OF COLORADO 201 La Porte Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 ▲ COURT USE ONLY▼ Plaintiff: CITY OF FORT COLLINS v. Defendants: AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, INC.; and, AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTORS, LLC Attorneys for Defendants: J. Scott Lasater, 16070 LASATER & MARTIN, P.C. 8822 Ridgeline Blvd., Ste. 405 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 303/730-3900 Scott@LasaterandMartin.com Case Number: 2021CV30470 Division: DEFENDANTS ANSWER AND JURY DEMAND Defendants, through their attorneys, Lasater & Martin, P.C., answers Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: GENERAL DEFENSES 1. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27 and 33. DATE FILED: July 29, 2022 10:23 AM FILING ID: DDE26D46FA964 CASE NUMBER: 2021CV30470 Page 2 of 4 2. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs 13, 18, 19, 29, 30, 34, 35, 38, 39, 44 and 45. 3. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 11, 12, 24 and 25. 4. In response to paragraph 2, the information from the Colorado Secretary of State speaks for itself, however, the contract documents that are the subject of this suit are in the name of American Civil Constructors, Inc., not American Civil Constructors, LLC. 5. In response to paragraph 5, defendants admit that the suit concerns the design and construction of a pedestrian underpass at the location stated but denies the remainder of the paragraph. 6. In response to paragraphs 9, 10, 28 and 32, the contracts documents speak for themselves and thus no response is necessary. 7. In response to paragraph 14, the scope of design and construction is as stated in the construction contracts which speak for themselves. The remainder of the paragraph is denied. 8. In response to paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, the defendants deny that there were defects per se, and state that the remaining allegations are statements of speculation, which are denied. 9. In response to paragraph 37, the allegation is one of legal duty which is for the court to decide, and thus no response is required. ACC otherwise states that it conformed to all applicable standards of care that may be applicable to it. 10. In response to paragraph 41, ACC admits that the City was not a signatory to the contract documents that are referenced in the suit. 11. In response to paragraphs 42 and 43, the first sentence of each paragraph is an allegation of legal duty which is for the court to decide, and thus no response is required. ACC otherwise states that it conformed to all applicable standards of care that may be applicable to it. ACC denies the remainder of each paragraph. 12. In response to paragraphs 26, 31, 36 and 40 Defendants reallege their answers and defenses stated herein. 13. Defendants deny all allegations not specifically admitted. Page 3 of 4 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 14. Regarding the negligence claims, the damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff and its assignor (hereinafter “plaintiff”), if any, may have been caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff in an amount sufficient to preclude or limit any recovery of damages under the Comparative Negligence Statute. 15. To the extent that a third party has paid or is obligated to pay any of the Plaintiff's claimed damages pursuant to the provisions of any contract under which a third party is subrogated to the extent of the amounts paid, Plaintiff may be precluded from recovering those amounts as damages in any action against these Defendants. 16. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate its damages, if any, and specifically, may have failed to exercise reasonable, cost-effective mitigating efforts. 17. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff may have been caused by the acts of a third person or persons for whose actions these Defendants are not responsible. 18. The damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff may have been the result of an intervening cause for which this Defendant is not responsible. 19. The Defendant is not liable for any amount greater than that represented by the degree or percentage of any negligence or fault attributable to it in producing Plaintiff's claimed damages, and a determination of the percentage of any negligence or fault attributable to the Defendant, the Plaintiff, any Co-Defendant and any non-parties designated by Defendant must be made by the trier of fact, in accordance with C.R.S. 13-21-111.5. 20. Plaintiff may not be the real party in interest to certain damages claimed and may not have standing to sue for such damages. 21. Plaintiff’s claims may be limited by C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et. seq. 22. Plaintiff’s claims may be limited by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and force majeure. 23. Plaintiff’s claims, and in particular the claims against ACC, LLC, may fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. THEREFORE, Defendants pray for judgment in their favor and for further judgment against Plaintiff and its attorneys for attorney’s fees in defending this action, if found to be frivolous and groundless pursuant to Section 13-17-101 through 106, C.R.S. 1973, as amended, and for costs, expert witness fees, interest and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Page 4 of 4 DEFENDANT(S) REQUEST(S) THAT ALL ISSUES OF FACT BE TRIED TO A JURY OF SIX (6) PERSONS. Respectfully submitted July 29, 2022. LASATER & MARTIN, P.C. J. Scott Lasater ________________________________ J. Scott Lasater CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on July 29, 2022, a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH JURY DEMAND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT was filed and served via Colorado Courts E-filing, to all Counsel of Record. /s/ J. Scott Lasater In accordance with C.R.C.P. 121, §1-26(7), a printable copy of this document with electronic signatures is maintained by the filing party and is available for inspection by other parties or the Court upon request.