Why this cuts both ways for an association

An association is more likely to be a landowner for injuries beyond the specific common element it maintains. The test is legal responsibility for the property's condition, or for activities or circumstances existing on it — not where the association's people physically were. An association responsible for a roof, a boiler, garage ventilation or an irrigation system can be a landowner as to injuries that manifest somewhere else on the property entirely.

The association's vendors are landowners too, which matters for indemnity and additional-insured negotiation. A roofer, HVAC contractor or pool vendor working on one component can be a landowner as to injuries elsewhere — broadening both who an injured resident may sue and whom the association may bring in.

And because the Act is the exclusive remedy against a landowner, landowner status also eliminates common-law negligence claims. That is a defence benefit as well as a liability expansion, and it is why the plaintiffs here were arguing to keep the roofers out of the definition.

The cert denial is the interesting part

The division was unanimous, and review was denied. But Justice Hood and Justice Samour recorded that they would grant certiorari on:

“Whether the Division erred when it held, as a matter of first impression, that contractors who are statutory ‘landowners’ under the Premises Liability Act for the areas where they have contracted to work are also landowners for areas on the same real property where they are not contracted to work and where they would themselves be invitees.”

And: “Whether the Division erred in holding that Roofers who were unquestionably landowners where they performed their work atop a Walgreens store were also landowners inside the store where they would have been invitees or licensees.”

Two of seven justices flagging a first-impression holding is a real signal that the proximity question is not settled to the whole court's satisfaction. For now, 2025 COA 59 is Colorado law.

Read it with the case the court did take

The Supreme Court granted certiorari en banc on January 12, 2026 in Twin Shores Master Owners Association, Inc. and Hammersmith Management, Inc. v. Willis, No. 25SC286, on the reframed question “[w]hether the division erred in holding that as to an association, a unit owner's guest is afforded invitee status under the Premises Liability Act … in areas that are part of the common elements owned and controlled by the association.”

The two cases address different halves of the same statute. Macomber is the landowner-identity question: who is a landowner. Twin Shores is the classification question: what duty is owed to whom. Together they will define Colorado association premises exposure. We offer no prediction on Twin Shores.

What it means for a board

Assume the association is a landowner for the whole property it is responsible for, not just the component being worked on. That is the practical reading of this holding, and it is the assumption a carrier will price.

Keep a dated inspection and remediation log for common elements. Duty aside, liability under the Act turns on dangers the landowner “actually knew or should have known” about. The log is the evidence.

Negotiate vendor contracts on the footing that the vendor is also a landowner. Additional-insured status, indemnity, and confirmation of the vendor's own liability limits are not boilerplate in a state where a contractor's landowner status reaches beyond its work area.

And check the association's own exculpatory language separately, because it is weaker than most boards assume. In Shive v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, LLC, 2025 COA 87, announced November 6, 2025, the Court of Appeals held that references to “facilities” in a membership agreement's exculpatory clause did not clearly and unambiguously extinguish liability for a fall on an icy, publicly accessible sidewalk near the entrance, and reversed summary judgment on the premises-liability claim. Colorado treats exculpatory agreements as disfavoured and closely scrutinised, though generally enforceable where they clearly reflect an intent to extinguish liability. A generic reference to “facilities” in a pool waiver, clubhouse rule or amenity-use agreement will not cover a fall on a walkway, parking area or entryway. If a board means to shift that risk, the document has to say so in terms.

What would change the answer

A defendant with no legal responsibility for the condition of the property or the activities on it is outside the definition. Injuries not arising from the condition of, or activities on, the property are outside the Act. And § 13-21-115(7)(b) is a statute the legislature can amend — which, given two justices' recorded interest, is worth watching.