Nancy A. Anderson filed a lawsuit against Arvada Preservation Partners LP and Rentokil North America, Inc. arising from conditions in her apartment unit at the Marcella Apartments. Anderson alleged that she suffered injuries related to a bed bug infestation within the property.
The complaint asserted three causes of action. Anderson brought a claim under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act, a claim for breach of Colorado’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Act, and a claim under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The claims centered on allegations that the defendants failed to correct dangerous conditions within the apartment complex.
Anderson alleged that the defendants failed to effectively treat the bed bug infestation and did not implement appropriate pest management methods. She also alleged that the defendants failed to address a broader infestation throughout the building despite awareness of the issue.
Arvada Preservation Partners LP and Rentokil North America, Inc. submitted a joint trial brief addressing whether Colorado’s Premises Liability Act provided Anderson’s exclusive remedy. The defendants maintained that Anderson’s additional statutory claims were barred because all of her allegations arose from the same property conditions that formed the basis of the premises liability claim.
The defendants argued that Colorado’s Premises Liability Act applies when an individual suffers injuries caused by dangerous conditions on the property of another. They noted that Anderson alleged the defendants were landowners under the statute and that her injuries stemmed from conditions existing within the apartment.
The defendants also addressed Anderson’s status as an invitee under the statute. They asserted that any recovery available to Anderson was limited to damages caused by a landowner’s unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against known dangers on the property.
The defendants argued that Anderson’s Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim relied on the same conduct and alleged failures identified in the premises liability claim. According to the defendants, the allegations concerning pest treatment methods, response to infestations, and failure to address dangerous conditions all related directly to duties imposed under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act.
The trial brief also addressed Anderson’s allegations that the defendants failed to disclose bed bugs in the apartment unit before she moved in. The defendants stated that no evidence established that bed bugs were present in Anderson’s specific unit before her arrival or that the defendants had notice of an infestation in that unit before approximately one month after she moved into the apartment.
The defendants maintained that Anderson’s Consumer Protection Act claim attempted to create a separate statutory cause of action based on the same alleged conduct supporting the premises liability claim. They also asserted that the claim effectively attempted to apply a general negligence standard to conduct already governed by the Premises Liability Act.
The defendants cited Colorado authority stating that the Premises Liability Act serves as the exclusive remedy for injuries resulting from dangerous conditions on property owned or controlled by a landowner. The brief discussed prior Colorado decisions explaining that the statute replaced common law premises liability claims and governs claims involving dangerous conditions existing on real property.
The defendants also referenced decisions addressing attempts to pursue additional statutory claims arising from the same property conditions. They asserted that Anderson’s allegations did not involve separate and distinct duties outside those imposed by the Premises Liability Act because all of the alleged conduct related to treatment of the infestation and management of the property condition.
The trial brief distinguished situations where separate negligence claims may proceed if supported by facts involving duties unrelated to the condition of the property itself. The defendants maintained that Anderson’s allegations did not involve such separate duties.
In their conclusion, the defendants requested that the court determine that Colorado’s Premises Liability Act provided Anderson’s exclusive remedy for injuries allegedly caused by dangerous property conditions. They asked the court to bar the Colorado Consumer Protection Act claim on that basis.
If you are dealing with injuries connected to unsafe property conditions, our team handles premises liability matters involving apartment complexes, property owners, and dangerous conditions on residential property. You can Contact us to discuss your situation and learn how our team can assist with your claim.