Macomber v. Nations Roof, LLC.
2025 COA 59. No. 24CA1094. Landlords and Tenants—Colorado Premises Liability Act—Definition of Landowner—Amendment of Complaint.
June 18, 2025
Plaintiffs Macomber, Kujawa, and McCullough worked at a Walgreens store (the store). Walgreens contracted with Nations Roof, LLC to repair the store’s roof, and Nations Roof subcontracted with Laguets Roofing, LLC to perform the roof repairs. Laguets Roofing placed a portable gas generator on the store’s roof while it performed the repairs. Macomber, the store manager, called Nations Roof to report the smell of adhesives inside the store and, about an hour later, called again to report an exhaust smell. In response, the roofing crew moved the generator farther away from the HVAC units and eventually stopped using the generator altogether. But employees inside the store experienced headaches, nausea, and vomiting, prompting a call to 911, and the fire department responded and found elevated levels of carbon monoxide inside the store. At least five Walgreens employees sought medical attention for carbon monoxide poisoning symptoms. Plaintiffs sued Nations Roofing and Laguets Roofing (the roofers), asserting only common law negligence claims. The roofers moved for summary judgment, arguing that they qualified as landowners under the Premises Liability Act (PLA), so plaintiffs’ sole and exclusive remedy fell under the PLA, not the common law. Plaintiffs disputed whether the roofers fell within the PLA’s definition of landowner and requested, alternatively, that the court allow them to amend their complaint to add PLA claims if it determined that the PLA provided their exclusive remedy. The district court did not allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint, and it granted the roofers summary judgment.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the district court erred by determining that the roofers qualified as landowners under the PLA because they neither entered nor controlled the store’s interior where plaintiffs sustained their injuries. As relevant here, the PLA broadly defines “landowner” to include anyone who is legally responsible for the condition of the property or for the activities conducted or circumstances existing on the property. And a defendant may be legally responsible for a property’s conditions or the circumstances there if the defendant was assigned responsibility for all or part of the property through a contract, but they need not have actually caused the situation that injured the plaintiff to be considered a landowner. Further, the court of appeals held that the conditions, activities, and circumstances on property that allegedly injured an entrant do not have to occur in close physical proximity to the defendant’s activities for the defendant to qualify as a landowner under the PLA. Here, it is undisputed that Nations Roof had a valid contract with Walgreens to work on the store’s roof and that Nations Roof validly subcontracted with Laguets Roofing to install the roof improvements. The roofers were thus legally authorized to be on the property to perform the roofing work. Further, Nations Roof’s contract with Walgreens provided that all acts and omissions of its subcontractors were deemed the acts and omissions of Nations Roof, and the contract made Nations Roof responsible for its subcontractor’s acts and omissions. Similarly, under its subcontract, Laguets Roofing assumed all obligations applicable to its roofing work that Nations Roof had agreed to in its contract with Walgreens. The roofers were thus legally responsible for the conditions, activities, or circumstances on the property that plaintiffs identified in their complaint. The district court thus properly determined that the roofers fell within the PLA’s definition of landowner and granted them summary judgment on plaintiffs’ common law negligence claims.
Plaintiffs also contended that even if the district court didn’t err by determining that the roofers qualified as landowners, reversal is required because the court abused its discretion by denying their request to amend their complaint to add PLA claims. However, the district court did not abuse its discretion because well before the deadline for amending pleadings, plaintiffs knew of the factual bases for their claims and the roofers’ planned defense based on the PLA providing plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy, but they elected to maintain a negligence-only complaint. And plaintiffs unduly delayed their request to amend the complaint.
The court also determined that as the prevailing parties on appeal, the roofers are entitled to their appellate costs upon compliance with C.A.R. 39(c)(2).
The judgment was affirmed.