What changes inside a program project

For a “program claim,” four protections attach.

A certificate of review for design-professional claims. A plaintiff suing an architect or engineer must file a certificate of review with the complaint under C.R.S. 13-20-602, setting out the negligence and declaring the consultant competent. Failure means the court “shall dismiss the complaint” absent good cause. A defendant designating an architect or engineer as a nonparty at fault must file its own certificate of review at least forty-five days before trial, or the court “shall not consider” that nonparty's fault.

An actionable-damage threshold. No program claim unless the defect resulted in actual property damage; actual loss of use; actual bodily injury or wrongful death; “an unreasonable reduction in the capability of, or an actual failure of, a building component to perform an intended function or purpose”; or an unreasonable risk of bodily injury or death, or a threat to the life, health or safety of occupants.

Warranty exhaustion, and a six-year outer limit. The claimant “shall pursue all reasonable remedies available under the warranty process before bringing an action for damages,” with limitations and repose tolled from first pursuit of a warranty remedy “for no more than one year or until the completion of the warranty process, whichever is longer.” Where the professional gave a conforming warranty and the claimant discovered or should have discovered the defect within the longest applicable warranty period, suit must be brought no later than six years after substantial completion.

Affirmative defenses, including weather or natural phenomena exceeding code design criteria, the homeowner's unreasonable failure to mitigate, and failure to follow the builder's or manufacturer's maintenance recommendations — the last available only if the professional shows the homeowner had written notice of the schedules, that they were reasonable when issued, and that the defect did not itself prevent the maintenance.

The offer timetable, and the dates a volunteer board can blow

Subsection (9) requires the construction professional and its liability insurer to send, by certified mail or personal service, either an offer to settle by payment or by agreeing to remedy, or a written response identifying the applicable standards and explaining why no repair is required, or a written response explaining the scope of work and why the defect is not the professional's responsibility.

An offer within ninety days after the inspection deadline under C.R.S. 13-20-803.5; a written response within thirty days after that deadline; and an absolute outside limit: “the total time to provide an offer must not exceed two hundred ten days after the date of the notice of claim.” That 210-day mechanic operates “notwithstanding any provision in a contract or any requirement in the governing documents” — so declaration language purporting to control the timing is displaced.

Then the claimant's window: within thirty days after rejecting an offer, a written proposal to have the defect repaired at the professional's expense or to settle. If the professional does not accept in writing within fifteen days, the proposal is deemed rejected. If it does accept, it must pay the claimant's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred investigating the defect and proposing the repair.

Fee-shifting runs both ways, keyed to the verdict

This is the provision that should make a board take advice before rejecting an offer. If a claimant “unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer” and then sues, the court may award the professional attorney fees and costs. If the professional fails to make a reasonable written offer, the damage limitations and the defenses do not apply, and the court may award the claimant fees and costs.

And the test is a bright line measured after the fact: an offer is reasonable and the rejection unreasonable if the claimant recovers a final judgment less than the amount offered or the reasonable value of the repair offered — and the reverse. It is an offer-of-judgment mechanic keyed to the eventual verdict, which means the risk of rejecting is not knowable when the decision has to be made.

What boards and buyers should do

Search the county real property records for a recorded notice of election on any newly built Colorado condominium or townhome offered for sale on or after January 1, 2026. That one document tells you whether the certificate-of-review requirement, the damage threshold, the warranty exhaustion rule and the six-year limit apply.

If it is a program project, docket the warranty periods at turnover — one year, two years, six years — and pursue the warranty process first, because the statute requires exhaustion and tolls only for the longer of a year or completion of the process.

Calendar the offer dates on receipt of any response: sixty days for document production, thirty and ninety days for the response and the offer, 210 days as the outer limit, then thirty days to counter-propose with a fifteen-day deemed rejection behind it.

One further note for buyers: the act also amended C.R.S. 29-32-105(2)(a) so that a local government's mandatory ninety-day fast-track approval process — a condition of eligibility for state affordable-housing money — now expressly includes “a for-sale multifamily condominium project.” Whether any of this actually revives Colorado condominium construction is contested; practitioners quoted in the state's own press remain doubtful that the reforms change underwriting behaviour, and the binding constraint they name is insurance, not litigation risk.