Gaylord Rockies Lawsuit

DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY,
COLORADO
7325 S. Potomac St., Centennial, CO 80112 DATE FILED: March 28, 2024 12:00 PM
303-645-6600 FILING ID: 8104ACA8E8F30
Plaintiff(s): CASE NUMBER: 2024CV30668
JOHN MARKIEWICZ, PATTI MARKIEWICZ, CORY

TAYLOR, TRISHA VALLONE, AND CORY TAYLOR AND
TRISHA VALLONE O/B/O MINOR CHILD R.V.
CARMEN KOLOC, INDIVIDUALLY AND O/B/O MINOR

CHILD A.K. ▲COURT USE
ONLY▲
v.
Defendant(s):
RK INDUSTRIES, LLC F/K/A RK MECHANICAL, INC.,

AURORA CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL, LLC,
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, LLC D/B/A GAYLORD
ROCKIES RESORT & CONVENTION CENTER, F/K/A
MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.,
MORTENSON/WELBRO, J.V.,
M.A. MORTENSON COMPANIES, INC.,
WELBRO BUILDING CORPORATION,
BLUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC.
CTL/THOMPSON, INC.
HKS, INC.
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
HOTEL CLEAN, LLC
RYMAN HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES, INC.
AURORA CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL LESSEE,
LLC D/B/A GAYLORD ROCKIES RESORT &
CONVENTION CENTER
Attorneys for Plaintiffs John Markiewicz, Patti Markiewicz,

Cory Taylor, Trisha Vallone, and R.V., a minor:
Michael S. Burg, Reg. No. 7143
Holly B. Kammerer, Reg. No. 21752 Case Number:
Shane C. Fulton, Reg. No. 52212
Peter A. Gibbins, Reg. No. 58406
Morgan L. Carroll, Reg. No. 31941
Lauren Knapp, Reg. No. 53737 Div.:
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.
40 Inverness Drive East
Englewood, Colorado 80112
1
Telephone: (303) 792-5595
Facsimile: (303) 708-0527
mburg@burgsimpson.com
hkammerer@burgsimpson.com
sfulton@burgsimpson.com
pgibbins@burgsimpson.com
mcarroll@burgsimpson.com
lknapp@burgsimpson.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs A.K., a minor, and Carmen Koloc:

Scott Gessler #28994
Gessler Blue LLC
7350 East Progress Place, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 8011
sgessler@gesslerblue.com
Matthew Durkin #28615

Keith Fuicelli #32108
Fuicelli & Lee, P.C.
1731 Gilpin Street
Denver, CO 80218
303-355-7202
mdurkin@coloradoinjurylaw.com
keith@coloradoinjurylaw.com
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs John Markiewicz, Patti Markiewicz, Cory Taylor, Trisha Vallone, and minor
child R.V., by and through their attorneys Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh and Jardine, P.C, and
Plaintiffs Carmen Koloc and minor child A.K., by and through their attorneys Gessler Blue LLC
and Fuicelli and Lee, P.C., for their Complaint and Jury Demand against the Defendants RK
Industries, LLC f/k/a RK Mechanical, Inc., Aurora Convention Center Hotel, LLC, Marriott Hotel
Services, LLC d/b/a Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center f/k/a Marriott Hotel Services,
Inc., Mortenson/Welbro, J.V., M.A. Mortenson Companies, Inc., Welbro Building Corporation,
Blum Consulting Engineers Inc., CTL/Thompson, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., HKS, Inc., Hotel
Clean, LLC, Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc., and Aurora Convention Center Hotel Lessee,
2
LLC, d/b/a Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center hereby state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This case arises from the collapse of air exchange ductwork in the indoor pool at
the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Center. Due to poor design, poor construction, and
poor maintenance, several hundred feet of four-foot diameter steel ductwork—weighing thousands
of pounds—fell 35 feet to the concrete floor below, crashing into several people.
2. The ductwork struck John Markiewicz in the head, driving his body into the
concrete floor, shattering his skull, causing multiple rib fractures, a bruised heart, and a traumatic
brain injury. He was unconscious when paramedics arrived and his injuries were so severe, it is a
miracle he is still alive today.
3. The ductwork smashed into a young, 13-year-old gymnast as she tried to escape,
knocking her several feet out of a hot tub, snapping her pelvis in half, shattering her hip, and
causing so much internal hemorrhaging that but for several blood transfusions, emergency surgery,
and the heroic efforts of emergency medical personnel she would have bled to death.
4. Tons of steel ductwork should not fall from the ceiling, and these life-changing
injuries should never have happened. Plaintiffs seek compensation and accountability from the
Defendants for their catastrophic injuries.
Markiewicz Family
5. John and Patti Markiewicz (“John” and “Patti”) traveled from Florida to Denver
in May 2023 to celebrate their granddaughter’s fourth birthday.
6. John and Patti joined their daughter Trisha, Cory, and their granddaughter R.V. at
the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Center (“Gaylord Rockies”).
7. Gaylord Rockies had several amenities, including an indoor pool.
3
8. May 6th was R.V.’s fourth birthday and as such, R.V. wanted to go to the indoor
pool at Gaylord Rockies.
9. After taking the elevator a few floors down from where their hotel room was
located, John was looking forward to much needed relaxation, while R.V. was eager to begin her
birthday celebration.
10. The pool area was large and included grey and tan concrete floors, red pool
chairs, and a water feature plus a curvy water slide.
11. Above the chairs was a vaulted ceiling with exposed beams.
12. A large heating and air conditioning metal duct, weighing thousands of pounds,
surrounded the entire perimeter of the pool and pool deck.
13. R.V. splashed in the water with her father Cory amongst other guests and John
stood up from his red pool chair.
14. As John stood up, the entire heating and air conditioning ductwork dropped thirty-
five feet from the vaulted ceiling above him and landed directly on his head and body (“the
Incident”).
15. The ductwork collapsed section by section like dominos around the entire
perimeter of the pool.
16. John’s body slammed into the concrete pool deck below him, rendering him
unconscious.
17. Even if John was conscious to try to remove the ductwork from his body, he
would be unsuccessful, as the weight of the metal duct pinned his body to the floor.
18. Trisha, R.V., and Cory only narrowly escaped catastrophic injury, as they were in
the zone of danger.
4
19. R.V. watched in terror as her crushed and bloodied grandfather struggled to
breathe under the immense weight of the ductwork.
20. A deluge of black liquid flowed from the ducts over John’s face and body.
21. Cory tried to rush R.V. away from the horrific scene while Trisha and another
bystander attempted to provide aid to John.
22. Patti was not at the pool; however, after she was told John was severely injured,
she rushed down to the pool to be by his side.
23. When Patti arrived at the pool, she saw John on the ground covered in blood
while Trisha applied pressure with towels on Johns head. Patti assisted with putting the towels
around John’s head.
24. Patti saw that John had trouble breathing, and she told the paramedics that he was
not breathing.
25. John was rushed to the emergency room, where Patti was unable to locate John
for an hour, which was unbearable because his life was in the balance and she could not get to
her husband.
26. Neither John’s life, nor the lives of his family members, will ever be the same as a
result of the permanent, debilitating injuries inflicted upon them at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel.
Koloc Family
27. A.K. was an elite thirteen year old gymnast from Hot Springs, Arkansas.
28. A.K. had been competing in gymnastics for many years, devoting hundreds of
hours to her sport. Not only did she compete in Arkansas, but she often travelled to out-of-state
competitions. And she usually placed towards the very top in state and regional competitions.
29. In May 2023, A.K., her mother, Carmen Koloc, and her grandmother traveled
5
from their home in Arkansas for a regional gymnastics meet in Colorado.
30. The competition was held at the Gaylord Rockies.
31. Prior to her events on May 6, 2023, A.K. went to the indoor pool area, to relax in
the hot tub and prepare for her performance later that day.
32. As A.K. sat on the edge of the hot tub, the heating and air conditioning ductwork
shuddered, and then fell from the ceiling across from her (“the Incident”).
33. This caused a cascading collapse of all the ductwork in the indoor pool area.
34. A.K. was sitting directly underneath the ductwork as it collapsed thirty-five feet
above her head.
35. She tried to get out of the way, but it was too late. A massive section of the
heating and air conditioning ductwork landed on her side, as she leaned over to escape the hot
tub.
36. The force of the blow knocked A.K. several feet out of hot tub, onto the concrete
floor. It broke her pelvis in half, shattered a hip, broke several ribs, and caused massive internal
hemorrhaging.
37. A.K. was rushed by emergency medical personnel to The Children’s Hospital of
Colorado, where she received life-saving treatment and surgery.
38. Without this treatment, she would have bled to death.
39. Her mother, Carmen Koloc, went with her daughter by ambulance to the
emergency department. She waited, wondering whether her child would live.
40. The Incident was a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and tortious conduct of the Defendants.
6
PARTIES
41. Plaintiff John Markiewicz is an adult citizen of Florida.
42. Plaintiff Patti Markiewicz is an adult citizen of Florida.
43. Plaintiffs Patti Markiewicz and John Markiewicz are married and were married at
the time of the Incident.
44. Plaintiff Cory Taylor is an adult citizen of Colorado and resides in Boulder
County.
45. Plaintiff Trisha Vallone is an adult citizen of Colorado and resides in Boulder
County with Cory Taylor and their daughter, R.V.
46. Plaintiffs Trisha Vallone and Cory Taylor also bring claims on behalf of their
minor daughter, R.V.
47. Plaintiff A.K., a minor, was a resident of Arkansas at the time of her injuries. She
now resides in Denver County.
48. Plaintiff Carmen Koloc, was an resident of Arkansas at the time of her daughter’s
injuries. She now resides in Denver County, and also bring claims on behalf of her minor
daughter, A.K.
49. Defendant Aurora Convention Center Hotel, LLC (hereinafter “Aurora
Convention Center”) is a Delaware Limited Liability corporation incorporated on January 15,
2015, with its principal place of business located at One Gaylord Dr., Nashville, Tennessee
37214.
50. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Aurora Convention Center owned the
Gaylord Rockies Hotel.
51. Defendant Blum Consulting Engineers Inc. (hereinafter “Blum”) is a Texas
7
corporation with its principal place of business located at 8144 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 200,
Dallas, Texas 75231.
52. Defendant Blum performed mechanical engineering work on the Gaylord Rockies
Hotel during its construction.
53. Defendant CTL/Thompson, Inc. (hereinafter “CTL”) is a Colorado corporation
with its principal place of business located at 1971 West 12th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204.
54. Defendant CTL performed structural engineering work and testing on the Gaylord
Rockies Hotel during its construction.
55. Defendant HKS, Inc. (hereinafter “HKS”) is a Texas Corporation with its
principal place of business located at 350 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 100, Dallas, Texas
75201.
56. Defendant HKS was the architect for the Gaylord Rockies Hotel.
57. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro, J.V. is a joint venture comprised of Defendants
M.A. Mortenson Company d/b/a Mortenson Construction and Welbro Building Corporation.
58. Defendant M.A. Mortenson Company d/b/a Mortenson Construction (hereinafter
“Mortenson”) is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business located at 700
Meadow Lane North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422.
59. Defendant Welbro Building Corporation is a Florida corporation with a principal
place of business located at 2301 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite #250, Maitland, FL 32751.
60. Except where otherwise indicated, “Mortenson/Welbro” shall refer collectively to
Defendants Mortenson/Welbro J.V., M.A. Mortenson Company d/b/a Mortenson Construction,
and Welbro Building Corporation.
61. Mortenson/Welbro performed general contracting and construction management
8
during the construction of the Gaylord Rockies.
62. Defendant Marriott Hotel Services, LLC, formerly known as Marriott Hotel
Services, Inc. d/b/a Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center (hereinafter “Marriott”), is a
Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 7750
Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.
63. Defendant Marriott is the manager and operator of the Gaylord Rockies Hotel.
64. Defendant RK Industries, LLC, formerly known as RK Mechanical, Inc.,
(hereinafter “RK Industries”) is a Colorado limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 3800 Xanthia Street, Denver, Colorado 80238.
65. Defendant RK Industries performed design, fabrication, and installation on the
mechanical systems during construction of the Gaylord Rockies Hotel.
66. Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (hereinafter “Johnson Controls”) is a Wisconsin
corporation with a principal place of business located at 5757 N. Green Bay Ave., Milwaukee,
WI 53209 and a Colorado registered agent located at 7700 E. Arapahoe Rd., Suite 220,
Centennial, CO 80112.
67. Defendant Hotel Clean, LLC (hereinafter “Hotel Clean”) is a limited liability
company organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Colorado with a principal place of
business located at 6820 Beaver Run, Littleton, CO 80125 and a registered agent located at 355 S
Teller St., Suite 200, Lakewood, CO 80226.
68. Defendant Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. (hereinafter “Ryman”) is a
corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of Delaware with a principal place of
business located at One Gaylord Drive, Nashville, TN 37214.
69. Defendant Ryman owns multiple “Gaylord”-branded hotels that are managed by
9
Defendant Marriott, including the Gaylord Rockies.
70. Defendant Aurora Convention Center Hotel Lessee, LLC D/B/A Gaylord Rockies
Hotel & Convention Center (hereinafter “Hotel Lessee”) is a limited liability company organized
and existing pursuant to the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at One
Gaylord Drive, Nashville, TN 37214.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
71. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the
Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article VI, Section 9.
72. This Court has general and specific jurisdiction over Defendants because they are
residents of Colorado, business entities incorporated under Colorado law, maintain principal
places of business in Colorado, transact business in Colorado, and engaged in tortious conduct in
Colorado. C.R.S. §13-1-124.
73. Venue is proper pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c)(1) because one or more defendants are
nonresidents of Colorado and Arapahoe County is the county designated in the complaint.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
74. In 2011, the Board of Commissioners of the Aurora Urban Renewal Authority
(“AURA”) adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of an incentive agreement between
AURA, Aurora, and Gaylord Entertainment Co. for the development of the Gaylord Rockies
Hotel and Convention Center on land located near the Denver International Airport.
75. In 2012, Gaylord Entertainment Co. sold its Gaylord Hotels brand and the rights
to manage its hotels to Marriott International, Inc.
76. The Gaylord Hotels chain is part of the Marriott International portfolio of brands.
10
77. In 2013, RIDA Development Corp. (hereinafter “RIDA”) agreed to move forward
as the new developer for the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project, with Marriott International to act as
the operator and manager of the hotel upon completion.
78. In 2014, the original incentive agreement was amended to identify RIDA as the
successor to Gaylord Entertainment Co.
79. On December 15, 2015, Mortenson/Welbro entered into a contract with
Defendant Aurora Convention Center whereby Mortenson/Welbro agreed to perform
construction management for the Gaylord Rockies project and be responsible for the supervision
of dozens of subcontractors.
80. On December 16, 2015, Defendant Aurora Convention Center entered into a
contract with Defendant Mortenson/Welbro whereby Mortenson/Welbro agreed to perform
general contracting services and provide labor and material for the construction of the Gaylord
Rockies.
81. On December 18, 2015, RIDA transferred the Gaylord Rockies to Defendant
Aurora Convention Center via Special Warranty Deed.
82. On December 18, 2015, Defendants Aurora Convention Center and Marriott
entered into a Management Agreement whereby Marriott agreed to manage the Gaylord Rockies
for an initial term of 30 years.
83. Defendant Aurora Convention Center leased the Gaylord Rockies to Defendant
Hotel Lessee.
84. On December 22, 2015, Defendants Mortenson/Welbro and RK Industries entered
into a Subcontract Agreement whereby RK Industries agreed to perform labor and furnish
materials relating to the mechanical heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (“HVAC”) systems
11
for the Gaylord Rockies project, including but not limited to the HVAC system in the Pool
Building.
85. Pursuant to the RK Subcontract:
a. RK Mechanical agreed to “[f]urnish and install all components necessary for

complete and fully functional Mechanical, Controls and Plumbing systems that
are fully compliant with all applicable code criteria and in conformance with the
Contract Documents.”
b. RK Mechanical agreed to “[p]rovide coordinated and detailed layout drawings,

shop drawings, and field installation schedules…”
c. RK Mechanical agreed to “[p]repare timely, detailed shop drawings including

embeds and anchor bolts, and locating the dimensions of any concrete pads
required for Subcontractor’s equipment or systems, and perform actual field
layout for all such pads. Forming, placing and finishing pads will be performed by
others. Furnishing and installing anchor bolts or embedded items, if required,
shall be the sole responsibility of Subcontractor.”
d. “Subcontractor shall furnish and install all approved backing, blocking or

additional support as required for its Work, including but not limited to piping,
ducts, panels, fixtures, etc. Provide any necessary support steel beyond that
indicated in structural drawings as necessary to support equipment and systems
provided under this Subcontract.”
e. “Provide coordinated anchorage plan(s) for items to be suspended from or

attached to steel or concrete structure or elements. Approval of fastening methods
must be received prior to any Work taking place.”
f. “Subcontractor acknowledges, understands and agrees Subcontractor is expected

and required to ‘fill in the gaps’ in systems that may not yet be fully developed in
the design documents, not identified, and/or detailed within the Contract
Documents. Should legitimate questions exist regarding the ‘Scope of Work’ of a
particular system/s, it is Subcontractor’s duty to question the design and obtain
clarification based upon the current design concepts, systems and program.”
g. “Subcontractor is responsible for intermeshing of various parts of the Work so

that no part shall be left unfinished or incomplete owing to any disagreements
between Subcontractor and its subcontractors or other subcontractors.
Subcontractor shall be solely responsible to furnish and install sleeves, block-outs,
piping, conduit, hangers, inserts, anchors, grounds and supports in concrete,
masonry, structural steel or other preceding work, to provide for installation of the
Work.”
12
h. “Should performance of the Work hereunder depend upon performance of other
work, Subcontractor shall carefully examine all contiguous or dependent work,
determine whether it is suitable for performance of the Work hereunder, report
immediately any unsuitable conditions to Mortenson/WELBRO in writing, and
allow Mortenson/WELBRO reasonable time to have such unsuitable conditions
remedied.”
i. “Subcontractor specifically agrees to fully coordinate its work with that of all
other contractors working on-site and to attend Mortenson/WELBRO, J.V.’s
Weekly Subcontractor Coordination Meetings and any other appropriate meetings
for the duration the Subcontractor or its employees, Subcontractors, suppliers,
vendors, or agents are on-site. This includes the complete coordination of all
hoisting and stocking activities, as well as the coordination of all substrate
preparations and installation sequencing with other trades.”
86. On January 13, 2016, construction began on the Gaylord Rockies.
87. The Gaylord Rockies includes an outdoor pool as well as an indoor pool
(hereinafter “Indoor Pool”) located within a building separate from the hotel and convention
center (hereinafter “Pool Building”).
88. The Pool Building was constructed with an activity pool, lap pool, hot tub, and
water slide, as reflected in Figure 1 below.
13
Figure 1: Photo of Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center Pool- Slide View
89. The Pool Building was constructed with vaulted ceilings and exposed structural
beams and joints, as reflected in Figure 1 above and Figure 2 below.
14
Figure 2: Photo of Gaylord Rockies Resort & Convention Center Pool- Water Fountain View
90. The Pool Building was constructed with an HVAC air supply system that was
suspended from the ceiling with cables.
91. The ductwork comprising the HVAC system in the Pool Building was five feet in
diameter.
92. At the time of the Incident, the suspended ductwork in the Pool Building
improperly contained significant amounts of water.
93. At the time of the Incident, the suspended ductwork in the Pool Building
exhibited significant amounts of rust and corrosion on its internal surfaces.
94. At the time of the Incident, the suspension system was grossly insufficient to
support the weight of the ductwork in the Pool Building.
15
95. At the time of the Incident, the HVAC system in the Pool Building was not
properly exhausting.
96. At the time of the Incident, the air traveling through the HVAC system in the Pool
Building was not adequately dehumidified.
97. During construction, on August 25, 2017, Aurora Building Inspector David
Schoonmaker performed an inspection of the Pool Building.
98. Inspector Schoonmaker noted, “Observed completed installation as constructed
with unapproved drawings at locations on north elevation transition from low roof to rooftop
level at clerestory windows Contractor has onesided installation at own risk pending no
revisions to drawings aft” (emphasis added).
99. The Gaylord Rockies opened to the public on December 16, 2018.
100. Due to failures in the design, construction, material selection, maintenance, and
monitoring of the HVAC system in the Pool Building, numerous components of the HVAC
system, including hangers, cables, and clamps, corroded to such an extent that their structural
integrity was compromised less than five years later.
101. The Incident was an event which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
negligence.
102. The Incident was caused by the gross negligence and reckless conduct of the
Defendants.
103. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff John
Markiewicz suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not
limited to:
a. Traumatic brain injury;
16
b. Cervical spinal cord compression and fracture, requiring discectomy and fusion at
C6-7;
c. Compression fracture of T2 vertebra;
d. Subarachnoid hemorrhage with open intracranial wound, with prolonged loss of

consciousness;
e. Fracture of parietal bone of skull with subdural hemorrhage;
f. Occipital condyle fracture;
g. Compression fracture of T3 vertebra;
h. Fracture of multiple ribs of right side;
i. Open fracture of multiple ribs of left side;
j. Fracture of left scapula;
k. Fracture of right humerus;
l. Bruised heart;
m. Torn pectoral muscle, and
n. Aneurysm of left internal carotid artery.
Markiewicz suffered economic damages including:
a. Past medical expenses;
b. Future medical expenses;
c. Past loss of income;
d. Future loss of income; and
e. Reduced earning capacity.
Markiewicz suffered non-economic damages including:
17
a. Pain and suffering;
b. Inconvenience; and
c. Emotional distress.
106. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Patti
Markiewicz suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not
limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder.
Markiewicz suffered non-economic damages including:
Markiewicz suffered loss of consortium, companionship, and domestic comforts.
109. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Cory
Taylor suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not
limited to:
a. Post-traumatic stress disorder; and
b. Dental injury.
110. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Cory
Taylor suffered non-economic damages including:
18
111. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Trisha
Vallone suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not
limited to, post-traumatic stress disorder.
112. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Trisha
Vallone suffered non-economic damages including:
113. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff R.V.
suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not limited to,
post-traumatic stress disorder.
114. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff R.V.
suffered non-economic damages including:
115. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff A.K.
suffered permanent, life-altering physical injuries and impairment, including but not limited to:
a. Multiple pelvic fractures;
b. Vaginal lacerations and trauma;
c. Pelvic hematoma;
d. Laceration of her left flank;
e. Penetrating abdominal trauma;
19
f. Hemorrhagic shock;
g. Multiple closed rib fractures;
h. Pulmonary contusion, and
i. Post-traumatic stress disorder.
suffered economic damages including:
a. Past medical expenses;
b. Future medical expenses;
c. Future loss of income; and
d. Reduced earning capacity.
suffered non-economic damages including:
118. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Carmen
Koloc suffered permanent, life-altering impairment, including but not limited to, post-traumatic
stress disorder.
119. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the Incident, Plaintiff Carmen
Koloc suffered non-economic damages including:
20
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs v. RK Industries
(Negligence)
120. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the rest of this Complaint and Jury Demand as
if fully stated in this sentence.
121. Defendant RK Industries had a duty to perform its construction operations at the
Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable, and workmanlike manner.
122. Defendant RK Industries breached its duty by, inter alia:
a. Failing to perform its design of the HVAC system in a reasonable and

workmanlike manner;
b. Failing to perform its installation of the HVAC system in a reasonable and

workmanlike manner;
c. Failing to perform its installation of the HVAC system in accordance with the
building plans and specifications;
d. Failing to obtain approval of Shop Drawings prior to installing the HVAC system
in the Pool Building;
e. Utilizing a hanging support system for the HVAC system in the Pool Building
that was not compatible with anticipated environmental and/or atmospheric
conditions;
f. Selecting fitting materials for the HVAC system in the Pool Building without
consideration of corrosion;
g. Selecting fitting materials for the HVAC system in the Pool Building that were
not corrosion-resistant, in violation of industry standards and Section 5.1 of the
American Society of Civil Engineers Standard 19-17, Structural Applications of
Steel Cables for Buildings;
h. Failing to implement corrosion protection for exposures involving condensation,

salt, or chemicals, in violation of industry standards and Section 5.3 of the
i. Failing to configure the HVAC system in the Pool Building with regard to
maximizing structural redundancy and robustness, in violation of industry
21
standards and Section 3.1.1 of the American Society of Civil Engineers Standard
19-17, Structural Applications of Steel Cables for Buildings;
j. Failing to ensure that the failure or malfunction of any one local component of the
HVAC system in the Pool Building would not create failure of a larger part of the
structure, in violation of industry standards and Section 3.1.1 of the American
Society of Civil Engineers Standard 19-17, Structural Applications of Steel
Cables for Buildings;
k. Failing to verify locations of exposed ducts with the project architect and owner
prior to installation, in contravention of the building plans, notes, and
specifications, including CM0.001;
l. Failing to utilize acid resistant materials for the ducts, louvers, and fans in the
Pool Building HVAC system;
m. Failing to paint and/or coat components of the HVAC system in the Pool Building
so as to protect against corrosion and harmful environmental conditions such as
pool cleaning chemicals, moisture, and water; and
n. Installing exhaust vents in close proximity to supply intake vents.
123. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant RK Industries’
negligence, Plaintiffs incurred the injuries, losses, and damages referenced herein.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence Per Se)
125. At the time Defendant RK Industries performed its construction work, Aurora had
adopted the 2009 version of the International Building Code, pursuant to the Aurora Municipal
Code sec. 22-131, Ordinance No. 2011-02.
126. According to section 101.2.1 of the 2009 International Building Code, “The
purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of
safety, public health and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities,
22
stability, sanitation, adequate light and ventilation, energy conservation, and safety to fire
fighters and emergency responders during emergency operations.”
127. According to section 2801.1 of the 2009 International Building Code, mechanical
appliances, equipment and systems shall be constructed, installed and maintained in accordance
with the International Mechanical Code.
128. At the time Defendant RK Industries performed its construction work, Aurora had
adopted the 2009 version of the International Mechanical Code, with amendments. See Aurora
Municipal Code sec. 22-131.
129. Section 302.1 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “The building
or structure shall not be weakened by the installation of mechanical systems.”
130. Section 304.1 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “Equipment
and appliances shall be installed as required by the terms of their approval, in accordance with
the conditions of the listing, the manufacturer’s installation instructions and this code.
Manufacturer’s installation instructions shall be available on the job site at the time of
inspection.”
131. Section 305.1 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “Pipe hangers
and supports shall have sufficient strength to withstand all anticipated static and specified
dynamic loading conditions associated with the intended use. Pipe hangers and supports that are
in direct contact with piping shall be of approved materials that are compatible with the piping
and that will not promote galvanic action.”
132. Section 305.5 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “Hangers and
anchors shall be attached to the building construction in an approved manner.”
133. Section 603.1 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “An air
23
distribution system shall be designed and installed to supply the required distribution of air. The
installation of an air distribution system shall not affect the fire protection requirements specified
in the International Building Code. Ducts shall be constructed, braced, reinforced and installed to
provide structural strength and durability.
134. Section 603.10 of the 2009 International Mechanical Code requires, “Provisions
shall be made to prevent the formation of condensation on the exterior of any duct.”
135. Section 501.2 of 2009 the International Mechanical Code requires, “The air
removed by every mechanical exhaust system shall be discharged outdoors at a point where it
will not cause a nuisance and not less than the distances specified in Section 501.2. The air shall
be discharged to a location from which it cannot again be readily drawn in by a ventilating
system. Air shall not be exhausted into an attic or crawl space.”
136. With respect to its work in the Pool Building, Defendant RK Industries violated
the 2009 International Mechanical Code, sections 302.1, 304.1, 305.1, 305.5, 501.2, 603.1 and
603.10, and the 2009 International Building Code, sections 101.2.1 and 2801.1.
137. The foregoing codes and/or ordinances violated by Defendant were intended to
protect the general public against the types of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs.
138. Defendant RK Industries’ violation of the foregoing codes and ordinances
constitutes negligence per se.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
24
141. Defendant RK Industries had a duty to perform its construction operations at the
Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable, and workmanlike manner.
142. Defendant RK Industries breached its duty by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;

25
n. Installing exhaust vents in close proximity to supply intake vents;
negligence, Plaintiffs feared for their own safety and such fear was shown by physical
consequences and long-continued emotional disturbance.
144. Plaintiffs’ fear caused them to suffer severe emotional distress physically
manifested in the form of sleeplessness, depression, anxiety, hypervigilance, and other symptoms
of post-traumatic stress disorder.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Premises Liability Act)
146. At the time of the Incident, Defendant RK Industries was a “landowner” as that
term is defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115 with respect to the real property underlying the Gaylord
Rockies.
147. At the time of the Incident, Plaintiffs were “invitees” at the Gaylord Rockies, as
that term is defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115(5)(a).
26
148. Defendant RK Industries owed duties to Plaintiff to maintain the Gaylord Rockies
in a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which they were aware or
should have been aware.
149. Defendant RK Industries unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to
protect against dangers of which it actually knew or should have known and breached its duties
by, inter alia:
a. Failing to supervise contractors and subcontractors performing work at the

Gaylord Rockies project;
b. Failing to inspect the work of contractors and subcontractors performing work at

the Gaylord Rockies project;
c. Failing to maintain the Gaylord Rockies property in a reasonably safe condition;
d. Failing to implement and enforce necessary construction standards so as to

prevent and/or remediate known dangerous conditions; and
e. Failing to inspect or maintain the HVAC system in the Pool Building.
150. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant RK Industries’ willful,
wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident was caused to occur and Plaintiffs incurred
the injuries, losses, and damages referenced herein.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Extreme and Outrageous Conduct)
152. Defendant RK Industries recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct
by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;
27
workmanlike manner;
conditions;

28
153. Defendant RK Industries knew that the Pool Building would be open to the
public, including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet RK Industries still cut corners
and performed shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work on the exposed HVAC system.
154. The suspension of the HVAC system from the ceiling over the pool increased the
risk of harm and potential gravity of harm to the public in the event of a mechanical failure.
155. Defendant RK Industries knew or should have known that there was a substantial
probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress in another person.
156. A reasonable member of the community would regard the Defendant RK
Industries’ conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly
intolerable in a civilized community.
157. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant RK Industries’ willful,
wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs suffered
severe emotional distress.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Aurora Convention Center
(Negligence)
159. Defendant Aurora Convention Center owed duties to Plaintiffs to maintain the
Pool Building in a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which it was
aware or should have been aware.
160. Defendant Aurora Convention Center unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable
29
care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:
a. Representing to consumers that the Gaylord Rockies offers “exclusive” amenities

such as “indoor and outdoor pools, waterslides, lazy river, and sunbathing decks”
despite the fact that such amenities were in a dilapidated, hazardous condition;
b. Representing to consumers that the Indoor Pool was an exclusive amenity despite
the pervasive presence of rust on the walls, ceilings, beams, nuts, and sprinkler
heads throughout the building;
c. Failing to inspect the Indoor Pool and the mechanical equipment contained
therein for dangerous conditions;
d. Failing to inspect the mechanical equipment contained in the Indoor Pool

Building for evidence of corrosion;
e. Failing to inspect the Indoor Pool to ensure that appropriate environmental

conditions were maintained;
f. Failing to monitor conditions within the Indoor Pool building to ensure that
appropriate humidity levels were maintained;
g. Failing to maintain the Indoor Pool;
h. Improperly cleaning the Indoor Pool Building and its associated mechanical
equipment with corrosive chemicals not intended for such use; and
i. Improperly storing corrosive chemicals inside the Indoor Pool Building’s

mechanical room.
161. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Aurora Convention
Center’s willful, wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and
Plaintiffs incurred the injuries, losses, and damages referenced herein.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligent Hiring and Supervision)
163. As the owner and developer of the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Aurora
30
Convention Center owed Plaintiffs a duty to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors
performing work on the project were competent and qualified.
164. As the owner and developer of the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Aurora
Convention Center owed Plaintiffs a duty to inspect and supervise the work of the contractors
and subcontractors at the Gaylord Rockies.
165. Defendant Aurora Convention Center knew or should have known that the
contractors and subcontractors performing the construction of the Gaylord Hotel, including but
not limited to Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries, were neither
competent nor qualified.
166. Defendant Aurora Convention Center was negligent and breached its duties by,
inter alia:
a. Failing to investigate the competency and qualifications of Defendants

Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries;
b. Failing to consider Defendant RK Industries’ reputation in the construction

industry for shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work;
c. Failing to supervise Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries

during the construction of the Gaylord Rockies;
d. Failing to inspect the work of Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK
Industries to ensure that it complied with applicable industry standards; and
e. Failing to remove Defendant RK Industries from the project after the Aurora
Building Inspector discovered it was performing mechanical work in the pool
building without the requisite approved plans.
31
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Premises Liability)
169. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Aurora Convention Center was a
“landowner” as that term is defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115 with respect to the real property
underlying the Gaylord Rockies.
171. Defendant Aurora Convention Center owed duties to Plaintiffs to maintain the
Pool Building in a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which they
were aware or should have been aware.
care to protect against dangers of which they actually knew or should have known. Such failures
include, but are not limited to:
a. Failing to ensure that contractors and subcontractors performing design,

fabrication, installation, and maintenance work on the Pool Building were
competent and qualified to perform such work;
b. Failing to supervise contractors and subcontractors performing design,

fabrication, installation, and maintenance work on the Pool Building;
c. Failing to inspect the work of contractors and subcontractors performing design,

d. Failing to maintain the Pool Building property in a reasonably safe condition;
e. Failing to implement and enforce necessary construction standards so as to

prevent and/or remediate known dangerous conditions;
f. Failing to inspect or maintain the HVAC system in the Pool Building;
32
g. Failing to monitor the Pool Building and its associated HVAC system for
corrosive environmental conditions;
h. Failing to protect the Pool Building and its associated HVAC system from
i. Failing to implement and monitor dehumidification controls within the Pool

Building and its associated HVAC system;
j. Failing to ensure that the supply air traveling through the Pool Building and its
associated HVAC system was properly exhausted; and
k. Failing to inspect the structural integrity of the Pool Building HVAC system
despite the pervasive presence of rust and corrosion.
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

175. Defendant Aurora Convention Center recklessly engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct by, inter alia:

c. Failing to take appropriate remedial action to address the pervasive presence of

rust and corrosion in the Pool Building;
33
d. Failing to inspect the Indoor Pool and the mechanical equipment contained
e. Failing to inspect the duct within the Indoor Pool building for water infiltration;
f. Failing to inspect the mechanical equipment contained in the Indoor Pool

g. Failing to inspect the Indoor Pool to ensure that appropriate environmental

h. Failing to monitor conditions within the Indoor Pool building to ensure that
i. Failing to maintain the Indoor Pool;
j. Improperly cleaning the Indoor Pool Building and its associated mechanical
equipment with corrosive chemicals not intended for such use;
k. Improperly storing corrosive chemicals inside the Indoor Pool Building’s

mechanical room;
l. Failing to implement and monitor dehumidification controls within the Pool

m. Failing to ensure that the supply air traveling through the Pool Building and its
n. Failing to inspect the structural integrity of the Pool Building HVAC system
176. Defendant Aurora Convention Center knew that the Pool Building would be open
to the public, including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Aurora Convention Center
still cut corners and failed to maintain the HVAC system and environmental controls.
177. Defendant Aurora Convention Center knew or should have known that there was
a substantial probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress in another
person.
34
178. A reasonable member of the community would regard the Defendant Aurora
Convention Center’s conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

181. Defendant Aurora Convention Center had a duty to maintain the Pool Building in
a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which it was aware or should
have been aware.
care to protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:



35

mechanical room.
183. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Aurora Convention Center’s
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Marriott
(Negligence)
186. Defendant Marriott, as the manager for the Gaylord Rockies, owed duties to
Plaintiffs to maintain the Pool Building in a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous
conditions of which it was aware or should have been aware.
187. Defendant Marriott unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to protect
against dangers of which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:

36




mechanical room;

188. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Marriott’s willful,
wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs incurred
37
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
191. Defendant Marriott breached its duties by, inter alia:




38
mechanical room;

192. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Marriott’s negligence,
Plaintiffs feared for their own safety and such fear was shown by physical consequences and
long-continued emotional disturbance.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

195. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Marriott was a “landowner” as that term is
defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115 with respect to the real property underlying the Gaylord Rockies.
197. Defendant Marriott owed duties to Plaintiffs to maintain the Pool Building in a
reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which they were aware or should
have been aware.
39
198. Defendant Marriott failed to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of
which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:





mechanical room;

40
FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

201. Defendant Marriott recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by,
inter alia:




41

mechanical room;

202. Defendant Marriott knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Defendant Marriott still cut corners and
failed to maintain the HVAC system and environmental controls.
203. Defendant Marriott knew or should have known that there was a substantial
204. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant Marriott’s
conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
civilized community.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

42
208. As the manager for the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Marriott owed Plaintiffs a
duty to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors performing work within the Pool Building
were competent and qualified.
209. As the manager of the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Marriott owed Plaintiffs a
duty to inspect and supervise the work of the contractors and subcontractors at the Gaylord
Rockies.
210. Defendant Marriott knew or should have known that the contractors and
subcontractors performing the maintenance of the Gaylord Hotel, including but not limited to
Defendants Hotel Clean, were neither competent nor qualified.
211. Defendant Marriott was negligent and breached its duties by, inter alia:
a. Failing to investigate the competency and qualifications of Defendant Hotel
Clean;
b. Failing to supervise Defendant Hotel Clean during the cleaning and maintenance
of the Gaylord Rockies; and
c. Failing to inspect the work of Defendant Hotel Clean to ensure that it complied
with applicable industry standards.
43
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs v. Mortenson/Welbro
(Negligence)
214. As the general contractor, Defendant Mortenson/Welbro owed Plaintiffs a duty to
perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable,
and workmanlike manner.
215. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro breached its duties by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;

44
pool cleaning chemicals, moisture, and water;
n. Installing exhaust vents in close proximity to supply intake vents; and
o. Failing to inspect the HVAC system in the Pool Building even after receiving
reports of rust and/or corrosion during construction.
216. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Mortenson/Welbro’s
SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence Per Se)
218. At the time Defendant Mortenson/Welbro performed its construction work,
Aurora had adopted the 2009 version of the International Building Code, pursuant to the Aurora
Municipal Code sec. 22-131, Ordinance No. 2011-02.
45
221. At the time Defendant Mortenson/Welbro performed its construction work,
Aurora had adopted the 2009 version of the International Mechanical Code, with amendments.
See Aurora Municipal Code sec. 22-131.
inspection.”
46
229. With respect to its work in the Pool Building, Defendant Mortenson/Welbro
violated the 2009 International Mechanical Code, sections 302.1, 304.1, 305.1, 305.5, 501.2,
603.1 and 603.10, and the 2009 International Building Code, sections 101.2.1 and 2801.1.
231. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro’s violation of the foregoing codes and ordinances
constitutes negligence per se.
47
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Negligent Hiring/Supervision)
ensure that the contractors and subcontractors performing work on the Gaylord Rockies project
inspect and supervise the work of the contractors and subcontractors at the Gaylord Rockies.
236. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro knew or should have known that the contractors
and subcontractors performing the construction of the Gaylord Rockies, including but not limited
to Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries, were neither competent nor
qualified.
237. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro was negligent and breached its duties by, inter alia:



Industries to ensure that it complied with applicable industry standards;
e. Permitting mechanical construction work at the Pool Building despite the absence
of approved drawings; and
f. Failing to remove Defendant RK Industries from the project after the Aurora
48
willful, wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs
incurred the injuries, losses, and damages referenced herein.
NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

242. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro had a duty to perform its construction operations at
the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable, and workmanlike manner.
243. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro breached its duty by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;
49

50
TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro
247. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous
conduct by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;

51
o. Failing to investigate the competency and qualifications of Defendants

p. Failing to consider Defendant RK Industries’ reputation in the construction

q. Failing to supervise Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries

r. Failing to inspect the work of Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK
s. Permitting mechanical construction work at the Pool Building despite the absence
of approved drawings; and
t. Failing to remove Defendant RK Industries from the project after the Aurora
248. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro knew that the Pool Building would be open to the
public, including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Mortenson/Welbro still cut
52
corners and performed shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work on the exposed HVAC
system.
249. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro knew or should have known that there was a
substantial probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress in another
person.
250. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant
Mortenson/Welbro’s conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and
utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
suffered severe emotional distress.
TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

253. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Mortenson/Welbro was a “landowner” as
that term is defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115 with respect to the real property underlying the
Gaylord Rockies.
53
257. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro had a duty to perform its construction operations at
the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable, and workmanlike manner.
258. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro breached its duty by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;

54
TWENTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Blum
(Negligence)
261. As the mechanical engineering contractor, Defendant Blum owed Plaintiffs a duty
to perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable,
to perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in conformity with
the applicable plans, specifications, codes, standards, and regulations.
263. Defendant Blum breached its duties by, inter alia:

workmanlike manner;
55
workmanlike manner;
conditions;

56
n. Installing and/or permitting the installation of exhaust vents in close proximity to

supply intake vents.
264. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Blum’s negligence,
TWENTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Blum
(Negligence Per Se)
266. At the time Defendant Blum performed its construction work, Aurora had adopted
the 2009 version of the International Building Code, pursuant to the Aurora Municipal Code sec.
22-131, Ordinance No. 2011-02.
269. At the time Defendant Blum performed its construction work, Aurora had adopted
the 2009 version of the International Mechanical Code, with amendments. See Aurora Municipal
Code sec. 22-131.
57
inspection.”
58
277. With respect to its work in the Pool Building, Defendant Blum violated the 2009
International Mechanical Code, sections 302.1, 304.1, 305.1, 305.5, 501.2, 603.1 and 603.10, and
the 2009 International Building Code, sections 101.2.1 and 2801.1.
279. Defendant Blum’s violation of the foregoing codes and ordinances constitutes
negligence per se.
TWENTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Blum
to perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable,
to perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in conformity with
the applicable plans, specifications, codes, standards, and regulations.
284. Defendant Blum breached its duties by, inter alia:
59
workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
conditions;

60
n. Installing and/or permitting the installation of exhaust vents in close proximity to

supply intake vents.
TWENTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Defendant Blum
288. Defendant Blum recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by, inter
alia:

workmanlike manner;

workmanlike manner;
61
conditions;

o. Failing to investigate the competency and qualifications of Defendants

p. Failing to consider Defendant RK Industries’ reputation in the construction

62
q. Failing to supervise Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries
r. Failing to inspect the work of Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK
s. Permitting mechanical construction work at the Pool Building despite the absence
of approved drawings;
t. Failing to remove Defendant RK Industries from the project after the Aurora
289. Defendant Blum knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Defendant Blum still cut corners and
performed shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work on the exposed HVAC system.
290. Defendant Blum knew or should have known that there was a substantial
291. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant Blum’s conduct
as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
292. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Blum’s willful,
wanton, and reckless conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs suffered severe
emotional distress.
TWENTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Defendant CTL
(Negligence)
63
294. As the structural engineering contractor, Defendant CTL owed Plaintiffs a duty to
perform its construction operations at the Gaylord Rockies Hotel project in conformity with the
applicable plans, specifications, codes, standards, and regulations.
inspect and test the HVAC system to ensure adequate structural support.
297. Defendant CTL breached its duties by, inter alia:
a. Failing to inspect the hanging supports for the HVAC system in the Pool
Building;
b. Approving a hanging support system for the HVAC system in the Pool Building
conditions;
c. Selecting fitting materials for the HVAC system in the Pool Building without
d. Selecting fitting materials for the HVAC system in the Pool Building that were
e. Failing to implement corrosion protection for exposures involving condensation,

f. Failing to configure the HVAC system in the Pool Building with regard to
g. Failing to ensure that the failure or malfunction of any one local component of the
64
h. Failing to verify locations of exposed ducts with the project architect and owner
prior to installation; and
i. Failing to supervise Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries

298. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant CTL’s negligence,
TWENTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

300. At the time Defendant CTL performed its construction work, Aurora had adopted
the 2009 version of the International Building Code, pursuant to the Aurora Municipal Code sec.
22-131, Ordinance No. 2011-02.
303. At the time Defendant CTL performed its construction work, Aurora had adopted
the 2009 version of the International Mechanical Code, with amendments. See Aurora Municipal
65
Code sec. 22-131.
inspection.”
66
311. With respect to its work in the Pool Building, Defendant CTL violated the 2009
313. Defendant CTL’s violation of the foregoing codes and ordinances constitutes
negligence per se.
TWENTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

67
Building;
conditions;


68
TWENTY-NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Building;
conditions;
69


327. Defendant CTL knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Defendant CTL still cut corners and
performed shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work on the exposed HVAC system.
328. Defendant CTL knew or should have known that there was a substantial
probability that its conduct would cause severe emotional distress in another person.
329. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant CTL’s conduct
70
330. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant CTL’s willful,
wanton, and reckless conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs suffered severe
emotional distress.
THIRTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. HKS
(Negligence)
332. As the architect, Defendant HKS had a duty to perform its design of the Gaylord
Rockies Hotel project in a safe, reasonable, and workmanlike manner.
333. As the architect, Defendant HKS owed Plaintiffs a duty to design the Pool
Building in conformity with applicable codes, standards, and regulations.
334. Defendant HKS Industries breached its duties by, inter alia:
a. Designing the Pool Building in a manner not in conformity with applicable codes,
standards, and regulations;
b. Failing to supervise the installation of the HVAC system in the Pool Building;
c. Failing to inspect the installation of the HVAC system in the Pool Building to
ensure compliance with the building plans and specifications;
d. Failing to review Shop Drawings prior to the installation of the HVAC system in
the Pool Building;
e. Designing the Pool Building to provide for an exposed HVAC system that was
not compatible with anticipated environmental and/or atmospheric conditions;
f. Designing the Pool Building without regard to maximizing structural redundancy

and robustness, in violation of industry standards and Section 3.1.1 of the
71
h. Failing to verify locations of exposed ducts within the Pool Building prior to
installation, in contravention of the building plans, notes, and specifications,
including CM0.001; and
i. Designing the Pool Building in a manner that resulted in exhaust vents being
located in close proximity to supply intake vents.
335. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant HKS’ negligence,
THIRTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. HKS
(Negligence Per Se)
337. At the time Defendant HKS performed its design and construction work, Aurora
had adopted the 2009 version of the International Building Code, pursuant to the Aurora
Municipal Code sec. 22-131, Ordinance No. 2011-02.
340. At the time Defendant HKS performed its design and construction work, Aurora
72
had adopted the 2009 version of the International Mechanical Code, with amendments. See
Aurora Municipal Code sec. 22-131.
inspection.”
73
348. With respect to its work in the Pool Building, Defendant HKS violated the 2009
350. Defendant HKS’ violation of the foregoing codes and ordinances constitutes
negligence per se.
THIRTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. HKS
(Negligence Infliction of Emotional Distress)
74
the Pool Building;

75
THIRTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs v. HKS
the Pool Building;

76
362. Defendant HKS knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet HKS still cut corners and performed
shoddy, non-workmanlike construction work on the exposed HVAC system.
363. Defendant HKS knew or should have known that there was a substantial
364. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant HKS’ conduct
365. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant HKS’ willful, wanton,
and reckless conduct, the Incident was caused to occur, and Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional
distress.
THIRTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
(Negligence)
367. Defendant Johnson Controls sold the dehumidification system used in the Pool
Building.
368. Defendant Johnson Controls installed the dehumidification system used in the
Pool Building.
77
369. As the seller and installer of the dehumidification system intended for use in the
Gaylord Rockies Pool Building, Defendant Johnson Controls owed Plaintiffs a duty to furnish
and install a dehumidification system appropriate for its intended use.
370. As the seller and installer of the dehumidification system intended for use in the
Gaylord Rockies Pool Building, Defendant Johnson Controls owed Plaintiffs a duty to furnish
and install a dehumidification system capable of maintaining consistent and appropriate humidity
levels within an indoor pool environment.
371. Defendant Johnson Controls breached its duties by, inter alia:
a. Furnishing a dehumidification system that was not appropriate for its intended use
b. Failing to warn that the dehumidification system was not capable of maintaining
consistent and appropriate humidity levels within an indoor pool environment;
and
c. Furnishing a dehumidification system that did not provide adequate warning or

notice in the event of excessive humidity levels.
372. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Johnson Controls’
THIRTY-FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Hotel Clean
(Negligence)
374. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hotel Clean was contracted to perform
maintenance and cleaning services in the Pool Building.
78
375. Defendant Hotel Clean owed duties to Plaintiffs to clean and maintain the Pool
Building in a reasonably safe condition and prevent dangerous conditions of which it was aware
or should have been aware.
376. Defendant Hotel Clean unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to protect
a. Failing to maintain the Indoor Pool and Pool Building in a safe, clean, and
sanitary condition;
b. Failing to take appropriate remedial action to address the pervasive presence of

d. Failing to inspect the duct within the Indoor Pool building for water infiltration;
e. Failing to inspect the mechanical equipment contained in the Indoor Pool

f. Failing to inspect the Indoor Pool to ensure that appropriate environmental

g. Failing to monitor conditions within the Indoor Pool Building to ensure that
h. Failing to maintain the Indoor Pool;
i. Improperly cleaning the Indoor Pool Building and its associated mechanical
j. Improperly storing corrosive chemicals inside the Indoor Pool Building’s

mechanical room;
k. Failing to implement and monitor dehumidification controls within the Pool

l. Failing to ensure that the supply air traveling through the Pool Building and its
associated HVAC system was properly exhausted;
m. Failing to inspect the structural integrity of the Pool Building HVAC system
despite the pervasive presence of rust and corrosion; and
79
n. Failing to report the pervasive presence of rust and corrosion to Defendants
Marriott and/or Aurora Convention Center.
377. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Hotel Clean’s willful,
THIRTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

379. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Hotel Clean was a “landowner” as that
Rockies.
381. Upon information and belief, Defendant Hotel Clean was contracted to perform
maintenance and cleaning services in the Pool Building.
382. Defendant Hotel Clean owed duties to Plaintiffs to clean and maintain the Pool
383. Defendant Hotel Clean unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to protect
sanitary condition;

80



mechanical room;


81
THIRTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Outrageous Conduct)
386. Defendant Hotel Clean recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by,
inter alia:
sanitary condition;




mechanical room;

82
387. Defendant Hotel Clean knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet were the last to see the HVAC system
up chose and instead chose to buff the bottom of the HVAC for appearances and failed to
investigate and/or report the presence of rust and corrosion.
388. Defendant Hotel Clean knew or should have known that there was a substantial
389. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant Hotel Clean’s
conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly intolerable in a
wanton, reckless, and negligent conduct, the Incident.
THIRTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs v. Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.
(Negligence)
392. As the owner and developer of the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Ryman
Hospitality owed Plaintiffs a duty to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors performing
work on the project were competent and qualified.
Hospitality owed Plaintiffs a duty to inspect and supervise the work of the contractors and
subcontractors at the Gaylord Rockies.
83
394. Defendant Ryman Hospitality owed duties to Plaintiffs to maintain the Pool
395. Defendant Ryman Hospitality knew or should have known that the contractors
and subcontractors performing the construction of the Gaylord Hotel, including but not limited to
Defendants Mortenson, Blum, CTL, HKS, and RK Industries, were neither competent nor
qualified.
396. Defendant Ryman Hospitality was negligent and breached its duties by, inter alia:



397. Defendant Ryman Hospitality unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to
protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:

84


mechanical room.
398. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Ryman Hospitality’s
THIRTY-NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

400. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Ryman Hospitality was a “landowner” as
that term is defined in C.R.S. § 13-21-115 with respect to the real property underlying the
Gaylord Rockies.
85
protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known. Such failures include, but are
not limited to:





86
FORTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
406. Defendant Ryman Hospitality recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous
conduct by, inter alia:





mechanical room;
87
407. Defendant Ryman Hospitality knew that the Pool Building would be open to the
public, including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Ryman Hospitality still cut
corners and failed to maintain the HVAC system and environmental controls.
408. Defendant Ryman Hospitality knew or should have known that there was a
substantial probability that their conduct would cause severe emotional distress in another
person.
409. A reasonable member of the community would regard Defendant Ryman
Hospitality’s conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly
suffered severe emotional distress.
FORTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Hospitality owed duties to Plaintiffs to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors performing
88
413. As the owner and developer for the Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Ryman
Hospitality owed Plaintiffs a duty to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors performing
414. Defendant Ryman Hospitality owed Plaintiffs a duty to inspect and supervise the
work of the contractors and subcontractors at the Gaylord Rockies.
415. Defendant Ryman Hospitality knew or should have known that the contractors
and subcontractors performing construction of the Gaylord Hotel, including but not limited to
qualified.
416. Defendant Ryman Hospitality was negligent and breached its duties by, inter alia:



89
FORTY-SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
419. Defendant Ryman Hospitality had a duty to ensure that the contractors and
subcontractors performing work on projects were competent and qualified.
420. As the owner and developer of Gaylord Rockies, Defendant Ryman Hospitality
owed Plaintiffs a duty to inspect and supervise the work of the contractors and subcontractors at
the Gaylord Rockies.
422. Defendant RK Industries breached its duties by, inter alia:



protect against dangers of which it knew or should have known by, inter alia:
90



mechanical room.
91
FORTY-THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs v. Hotel Lessee
(Negligence)
427. Defendant Hotel Lessee owed duties to Plaintiffs to maintain the Pool Building in
have been aware.
428. Defendant Hotel Lessee unreasonably failed to exercise reasonable care to protect




mechanical room.
92
429. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Hotel Lessee’s willful,
FORTY-FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

431. At the time of the Incident, Defendant Hotel Lessee was a “landowner” as that
Rockies.
have been aware.
against dangers of which it knew or should have known. Such failures include, but are not
limited to:



93


FORTY-FIFTH FOR RELIEF

437. Defendant Hotel Lessee recklessly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct
by, inter alia:

94




mechanical room;

438. Defendant Hotel Lessee knew that the Pool Building would be open to the public,
including but not limited to children and the elderly, yet Hotel Lessee still cut corners and failed
to maintain the HVAC system and environmental controls.
95
439. Defendant Hotel Lessee knew or should have known that there was a substantial
440. A reasonable member of the community would regard the Defendant Hotel
Lessee’s conduct as atrocious and going beyond all possible bounds of decency and utterly
FORTY-SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

443. Defendant Hotel Lessee owed duties to Plaintiffs to ensure that the contractors
and subcontractors performing work on the project were competent and qualified.
444. Defendant Hotel Lessee owed Plaintiffs a duty to ensure that the contractors and
subcontractors performing work on the project were competent and qualified.
445. Defendant Hotel Lessee owed Plaintiffs a duty to inspect and supervise the work
of the contractors and subcontractors at the Gaylord Rockies.
446. Defendant Hotel Lessee knew or should have known that the contractors and
subcontractors performing construction of the Gaylord Hotel, including but not limited to
qualified.
447. Defendant Hotel Lessee was negligent and breached its duties by, inter alia:
96


FORTY-SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

have been aware.

97



mechanical room.
452. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Defendant Hotel Lessee’s
FORTY-EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff Patti Markiewicz v. All Defendants
(Loss of Consortium)
455. Plaintiff John Markiewicz was injured as a result of Defendants’ negligence.
98
456. Plaintiffs Patti Markiewicz and John Markiewicz were married at the time of the
Incident.
457. As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of the injuries to John Markiewicz,
Plaintiff Patti Markiewicz suffered a loss to her rights of consortium, including but not limited
to, loss of affection, society, companionship, aid and comfort, and economic damages for loss of
household services.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for damages in amounts to be
determined at trial, as follows:
1. Damages for physical impairment and disfigurement;
2. Economic damages, including but not limited to, past, present and future medical and
rehabilitation expenses, out-of-pocket expenses, lost wages, and diminished earning
potential;
3. Non-economic damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, inconvenience, mental anguish, and emotional distress;
4. All other compensatory damages caused by Defendants’ actions, to be proven at trial;
5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided for by law;
6. Attorney fees, costs, and expenses of this action as provided for by law; and
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Respectfully submitted and dated this 28th day of March 2024.
BURG SIMPSON
ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE, P.C.
99
(Original signature on file at Burg Simpson
Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C.)
/s/ Michael S. Burg

Michael S. Burg, Reg. No. 7143
Holly B. Kammerer, Reg. No.
21752
Shane C. Fulton, Reg. No. 52212
Peter A. Gibbins, Reg. No. 58406
Morgan L. Carroll, Reg. No. 31941
Lauren Knapp, Reg. No. 53737
/s/ Matthew Durkin

Matthew Durkin #28615
Keith Fuicelli #32108
Fuicelli & Lee, P.C.
1731 Gilpin Street
Denver, CO 80218
303-355-7202
mdurkin@coloradoinjurylaw.com
keith@coloradoinjurylaw.com
Scott Gessler #28994

Gessler Blue LLC
7350 East Progress Place, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 8011
sgessler@gesslerblue.com
10
0

Gaylord Rockies Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gaylord Rockies Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY,

JOHN MARKIEWICZ, PATTI MARKIEWICZ, CORY

CARMEN KOLOC, INDIVIDUALLY AND O/B/O MINOR

RK INDUSTRIES, LLC F/K/A RK MECHANICAL, INC.,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs John Markiewicz, Patti Markiewicz,

Attorneys for Plaintiffs A.K., a minor, and Carmen Koloc:

Matthew Durkin #28615

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

miracle he is still alive today.

Defendants for their catastrophic injuries.

in May 2023 to celebrate their granddaughter’s fourth birthday.

the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Center (“Gaylord Rockies”).

7. Gaylord Rockies had several amenities, including an indoor pool.

pool at Gaylord Rockies.

chairs, and a water feature plus a curvy water slide.

surrounded the entire perimeter of the pool and pool deck.

stood up from his red pool chair.

perimeter of the pool.

the zone of danger.

breathe under the immense weight of the ductwork.

bystander attempted to provide aid to John.

she rushed down to the pool to be by his side.

around John’s head.

30. The competition was held at the Gaylord Rockies.

above her head.

Colorado, where she received life-saving treatment and surgery.

38. Without this treatment, she would have bled to death.

grossly negligent, reckless, and tortious conduct of the Defendants.

41. Plaintiff John Markiewicz is an adult citizen of Florida.

42. Plaintiff Patti Markiewicz is an adult citizen of Florida.

the time of the Incident.

County with Cory Taylor and their daughter, R.V.

minor daughter, R.V.

now resides in Denver County.

49. Defendant Aurora Convention Center Hotel, LLC (hereinafter “Aurora

Convention Center”) is a Delaware Limited Liability corporation incorporated on January 15,

Gaylord Rockies Hotel.

51. Defendant Blum Consulting Engineers Inc. (hereinafter “Blum”) is a Texas

Dallas, Texas 75231.

Hotel during its construction.

53. Defendant CTL/Thompson, Inc. (hereinafter “CTL”) is a Colorado corporation

Rockies Hotel during its construction.

57. Defendant Mortenson/Welbro, J.V. is a joint venture comprised of Defendants

58. Defendant M.A. Mortenson Company d/b/a Mortenson Construction (hereinafter

Meadow Lane North, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55422.

59. Defendant Welbro Building Corporation is a Florida corporation with a principal

60. Except where otherwise indicated, “Mortenson/Welbro” shall refer collectively to

Defendants Mortenson/Welbro J.V., M.A. Mortenson Company d/b/a Mortenson Construction,

and Welbro Building Corporation.

61. Mortenson/Welbro performed general contracting and construction management

Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814.

64. Defendant RK Industries, LLC, formerly known as RK Mechanical, Inc.,

business located at 3800 Xanthia Street, Denver, Colorado 80238.

65. Defendant RK Industries performed design, fabrication, and installation on the

mechanical systems during construction of the Gaylord Rockies Hotel.

66. Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (hereinafter “Johnson Controls”) is a Wisconsin

Teller St., Suite 200, Lakewood, CO 80226.

68. Defendant Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc. (hereinafter “Ryman”) is a

business located at One Gaylord Drive, Nashville, TN 37214.

Gaylord Drive, Nashville, TN 37214.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article VI, Section 9.

Colorado. C.R.S. §13-1-124.

(“AURA”) adopted a resolution authorizing the execution of an incentive agreement between