Whether faced with claims as a result of motor vehicle accidents, construction defects, recreational incidents and the like, we have the experience necessary to handle your case and protect the interests of your insureds. At Pearson & Paris, P.C., we have more than 50 years of combined legal experience. Our litigation team is experienced in zealously representing the interests of your insured while maintaining the most efficient approach to resolving claims satisfactorily and expeditiously. We offer competitive rates for insurance defense and will provide references upon request.
Call us at 303-872-4719 in the greater Denver area or toll free at 888-725-2609 across Colorado for a free initial consultation. You can also contact us online.
STRATEGIC REPRESENTATION IN LITIGATION
Our experience in defense matters is broad based, including the following:
- Construction Defects
- Directors and Officers Insurance Defense
- Drug and Alcohol Liability
- Employment Related Claims
- Errors and Omissions Defense
- General Liability Claims
- Insurance Coverage Issues
- Motor Vehicle Accidents
- Mountain Climbing and Guiding
- Outdoor Educational Program Incidents
- Recreational Incidents
- Sexual Harassment
- Travel and Tourism Litigation
- Vicarious Liability
- Whitewater Rafting Incidents
We have handled a variety of different types of civil rights actions. A summary of several of those cases follows:
Plaintiff (builder) v. Defendant A (the fire suppression subcontractor) and Defendant B (the insulation subcontractor)
District Court, Arapahoe County, Colorado
In this insurance defense case, the insurer hired our firm to represent the fire suppression subcontractor, a company in the business of installing fire suppression systems. The case arose out of several incidents wherein the pipes in the sprinkler suppression system in a town home complex froze and leaked causing flooding and damage to several units. The builder sought indemnification of the damages from both the fire suppression subcontractor and the insulation subcontractor which was responsible for installing the insulation.
We conducted an extensive investigation into the building plans and permits filed with the county. As a result, we discovered that in the course of construction, the builder had altered the plans by adding open air vents in the roof of the town home complex without subsequently adjusting the plans for the fire suppression system and the insulation. Using this information, we were able to reach a settlement for an amount substantially below the amount of the claims just prior to the initiation of binding arbitration.
Plaintiff (the rafting client) v. Defendant A (owner of the guide company) and Defendant B (the guide)
United States District Court, District of Colorado
This case involved a personal injury action brought by the rafting client who participated in a white-water rafting trip down the numbers@ section of the Arkansas River in Colorado. The rafting client alleged she was injured when she fell out of her raft as it hit a class IV rapid. Just prior to entering the rapid, the guide on that particular raft was thrown from the raft. The rafting client brought suit against both the owner of the guide company and the guide claiming that they were negligent and acted willfully and wantonly.
Specifically, the rafting client alleged that the owner of the guide company and the guide were liable for willful and wanton conduct because they allegedly concealed from the rafting client the fact that the risks that she would face on the rafting trip were greater than those usually encountered in white-water rafting. She claimed that owner and the guide knew that the particular stretch of river run that day was extremely dangerous due to very high water and that only skilled and experienced rafters could safely maneuver the rapids. The rafting client was not an experienced rafter.
Our firm was retained by the insurance carrier to represent both the owner of the rafting company and the guide. We filed a motion for summary judgment stating that the Acceptance of Responsibility and Release Agreement signed by the participant prior to the start of the rafting trip precluded the claims of the rafting client based on ordinary negligence. We also argued that the rafting client's claim for willful and wanton conduct was wholly unsupported by the record because the rafting client could not produce any evidence that the owner or the guide knew that the risks posed by rafting that particular stretch of river were greater than usual for the sport of white-water river rafting, let alone any evidence that the risks were, in fact, greater. Our motion for summary judgment was granted and all claims against the owner and the guide were dismissed. The case was appealed to the Tenth Circuit of the Federal District Court, which affirmed the dismissal in a written opinion.
Plaintiff (a national grocery chain) v. Defendant A (the general contractor), Defendant B (an individual) and Defendant C (an individual)
United States District Court, District of Colorado
A national grocery chain brought suit against our clients, a general contractor and two of the contractor's officers claiming the officers were personally liable. The contractor maintained a directors' and officers' liability policy with an insurance carrier that retained our firm to represent the individual officers. The contractor's business fell apart as a result of unforeseen troubles with an unrelated project thereby making completion of the projects for the grocery chain impossible. The grocery chain asserted claims for breach of trust, civil theft, conversion and negligence against all of our clients.
The grocery chain accused the contractor and its officers of misappropriating project funds in an attempt to redeem the project that ultimately destroyed the business of the contractor. The contractor admitted that it was forced to close its operations before completion of the projects, but that it had accomplished partial performance on those projects for which the contractor was entitled to partial payment. The builder further demonstrated that it had provided an accounting to the company, which the company ignored when it paid some subcontractors and suppliers in full, while refusing payment to others. After substantial discovery and negotiations, the case was settled for a sum significantly less than was claimed.