As previously reported, for certain consumer and employment arbitrations, Senate Bill 20-93 would have:
The SB 93 would also have required an individual arbitrator for certain consumer and employment arbitrations to make additional disclosures of information that might affect the arbitrator’s impartiality. The Bill also specified how attorney fees and other reasonable expenses are to be awarded if a court vacates an award because of an arbitrator’s evident partiality or failure to make required disclosures and clarifies when appeals of orders may be made in consumer and employee arbitrations.
The Bill also provided that for a standard form contract involving a consumer or employee:
On June 4th, the House Finance Committee postponed indefinitely SB 93. I assume that the bill was killed because it was not Fast, Friendly (i.e., lacking opposition), and Free. Though enough amendments were made to ameliorate some of the most serious concerns raised by opponents, including the construction industry, to get it out of the Senate, enough resistance remained to violate the “Friendly” test for whether the Colorado Legislature would pass is this year. Stay tuned next year, as this issue is sure to have a repeat performance.
For additional information regarding construction litigation in Colorado, or the legislative measure which may impact such litigation, feel free to reach out to David M. McLain by telephone at (303) 987-9813 or by e-mail at mclain@hhmrlaw.com.
We are thrilled to announce that our very own Lisa Bondy Dunn has been recognized…
The recent Town of Mancos v. Aqua Engineering case is an insightful example of how…
We are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins,…
In the case of Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners (2024…
The Hill Hotel Owner LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company case has garnered attention due to…
In the recent case of 5333 Mattress King LLC v. Hanover Insurance Company, the United…