Why this is an insurance story before it is a litigation story

Duty classification under the Premises Liability Act is what a general liability underwriter prices. If invitee status as to the association is affirmed for every unit owner's guest across every common element, the exposure profile a carrier assumes for a Colorado association changes — and it changes at a moment when the property side of the master policy is already under severe strain.

The Colorado Division of Insurance's own market study, delivered under HB24-1108, found association written premium up 115% between 2020 and 2024, with average premium per $1,000 of insured value up 44%, the top five carriers moving from 26% to 48% of the market, and about 37% of carriers reporting reduced risk tolerance. The study also listed liability and social inflation among the ranked drivers of availability. A change in the liability duty class lands on the same balance sheet.

What a board can — and need not — do while it is pending

Do not change coverage or governing documents in reliance on an undecided case. That is the whole of the negative advice, and it matters: an association that restructures its insurance programme or its common-element access rules on a prediction is spending money on a guess.

What is reasonable and non-speculative:

Confirm the association's general liability limits and whether an umbrella or excess layer sits above them. That is a fact that matters regardless of this case.

Read the management agreement's indemnity and insurance provisions. With a management company as a co-petitioner, the allocation of liability between association and manager is squarely in view. Note that under HB26-1099, effective August 12, 2026, the statutory record-turnover penalties in C.R.S. 38-33.3-317(9) can be varied “unless otherwise agreed in writing” — a reminder that management agreements in Colorado carry more weight than boards often assume, and this is a good moment to read one.

Ask the agent at the next renewal what duty-class assumption the carrier is pricing. A carrier that has already assumed invitee status has nothing to reprice; one that has not may.

And keep doing the ordinary things that reduce a premises claim regardless of duty class: documented inspection of common-element walkways, lighting, stairs, handrails and pool areas; a dated log of hazards reported and remediated; and prompt action on what the log records. Those records are what “knew or should have known” turns on, whichever way the classification goes.

The other Colorado appellate case people are citing incorrectly

While we are on the appellate docket, one correction is worth making because it circulates widely.

Several construction-law summaries described the Court of Appeals as having clarified the “control exception” to the statute of repose under Colorado's Construction Defect Action Reform Act in Kritzer v. Qwest Corp., 2025COA54, announced May 29, 2025. Reading the opinion, that is not what it holds.

Qwest had moved for summary judgment on the CDARA statute of repose at C.R.S. 13-80-104(1)(a); the plaintiffs argued the repose period did not apply because Qwest was in “actual possession or control” of the utility and sidewalk panel. A prior division had reversed and remanded in 2021 with instructions to make further findings on whether an exception applied. On remand the district court instead granted summary judgment on Colorado Recreational Use Statute immunity, and the 2025 published opinion decides only that question.

The opinion says so: “The district court has yet to make those findings. And we're not going to do so here.” And: “the applicability of the PLA is analytically independent of the applicability of CRUS. The same is true for the applicability of the statute of repose under CDARA. On remand the district court may make further findings…”

What 2025COA54 actually holds is a question of first impression under the Recreational Use Statute: the word “permits” in C.R.S. 33-41-103(1) “unambiguously requires some ability or authority on the part of the party invoking immunity to prohibit or limit in some way the use of the land for recreational purposes.” Bare acquiescence by a utility holding a state highway department permit over a public sidewalk is not enough.

There is no association party in Kritzer. The CDARA control exception remains unsettled, and anyone told a 2025 Colorado decision resolved it should be told the published opinion expressly declined to reach it.

What to watch

The Supreme Court took one reframed question and denied the rest, which usually means a focused opinion rather than a broad restatement of association liability. Briefing and argument follow on the court's own timetable; no decision date is set.

For a Colorado association, the practical watch item is the renewal after the opinion lands, not the opinion itself. That is when the classification, whatever it turns out to be, shows up in a premium.