Laserfiche WebLink
revegetation was not, or will not, be needed for certain roads(third claim) are in essence <br /> allegations that the Division's reclamation efforts are in violation of the Reclamation Act. <br /> Violation of a non-contractual statutory duty is a tort, not a breach of contract as alleged <br /> by MCR. Newt Olson Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 8, 83 Colo. 272, 263 P. 723, 724 (1928). <br /> In Newt Olson,the defendant school failed to secure a bond from a construction contractor to <br /> protect materialmen, in violation of a State statute. The contractor did not pay the lumber <br /> company, which sued the school district. The court held that despite various contracts between <br /> the players, violation of the statutory requirement for a bond was a tort and so ruled for the <br /> school district on sovereign immunity grounds. Id. Similarly, MCR's attacks on the merits of <br /> the Division's reclamation effort allege a violation of the Reclamation Act. As such, MCR's <br /> claims are barred by governmental immunity. t <br /> Moreover, the Division notes that even if the Liquidation Plan is a contract between the <br /> Division and MCR, the Liquidation Plan requires only that certain money generated through <br /> MCR's bankruptcy be spent on reclamation, and provides for dispersal of residual reclamation <br /> moneys. Amended Third Party Complaint, ¶¶ 15-17, 21, 22. MCR does not and cannot allege <br /> that the Liquidation Plan provides specific standards or goals for reclamation and restricts <br /> reclamation of Coal Basin to those activities specified in the reclamation plan. Amended Third- <br /> party Complaint at¶¶ 18 - 22; Liquidation Plan, MCR's Answer Exhibit 2, ¶2.5 ("Class 5 shall <br /> consist of the Allowed Claims of the [State] for reclamation . . . whether or not such claims arise <br /> under the Debtor's approved Reclamation Plan . . . or state statute . . ." ). <br /> 'Although Newt Olson was partially overruled by Evans v. Board of County Com'rs of El Paso County, 174 Colo. <br /> 97,482 P.2d 968 (1971),the Evans case does not affect the validity of the holding of Newt Olson that violation of a <br /> non-contractual statutory duty is a tort. Evans merely eliminated judicially-created sovereign immunity and ruled <br /> that sovereign immunity is a matter for the General Assembly,which thereafter enacted the CGIA. <br /> 9 <br />