NEWS

In ACE American Insurance Co. v. AERCO International, Inc., 2022 WL 814788 (E.D. Mo., March 17, 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri   held the absence of privity of contract and the economic loss doctrine do not bar a contractor’s contribution claim against an architect and its subconsultant.

In Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ. on Behalf of Univ. of Nevada, Reno v. Worth Grp. Architects, P.C., 499 P.3d 1177 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court held a Plaintiff’s non-indemnity claims against an architect were not preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

In Gito, Inc. v. Axis Architecture, P.C., 2021 WL 5858467 (Pa. App. Dec. 10, 2021), a Pennsylvania Appellate Court held an anti-assignment provision in a contract between the Owner and Architect precluded the Owner from assigning the contract to a third party before the contract had been performed, but did not preclude a post-performance assignment to recover damages for breach of the contract.

On November 2, 2021, the Florida Legislature began proposing amendments to Florida’s construction defect statute of limitations and repose under 2022 Florida Senate Bill No. 736 (“SB 736”). “The purpose of a statute of repose is to cut off the right of action after a specified time measured from the delivery of a product or the completion of work, regardless of the time of the accrual of the cause of action or the notice of the invasion of a legal right.” According to the Florida Legislature, “the [new] bill provides for a [four]-year limitations period for bringing a construction defect action, whether the action is based on a patent or obvious defect or a latent or hidden defect. The statutory language authorizing a [ten]-year statute of repose for latent defects is repealed.”

In Johnson Nathan Strohe, P.C. v. MEP Engineering, Inc., 2021 WL 4314216 (Colo. App. Sept. 23, 2021), a Colorado appellate court addressed an issue of first impression and held that a limitation of liability provision in the contract between an architect and engineer was ambiguous, but did not render the provision void.

On April 29, 2021, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed a new law that prohibits certain type indemnification provisions in professional services contracts and establishes a single standard of care for Alabama design professionals for Alabama projects governed by Alabama law. The new law, titled “Contract requirements for professional services of design professionals,” went into effect on July 1, 2021, under Alabama Code § 41-9A-3 (the “Act”), and applies to all design professional contracts created since that date. Alabama joins states such as Georgia and North Carolina by enacting a state law that seeks to limit financial liability and risk allocation to design professionals in construction contracts.

In Chicago Ambulatory Surgery Associates, Inc. v. Restore Construction, Inc., 2021 WL 4168597 (Ill. App. Sept. 14, 2021), an Illinois court held an architect that contracted to provide design drawings and make regular site visits did not also undertake a duty to inspect plumbing work for compliance with those drawings.

In Barrientos v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., No. 13-20-00092-CV, 2021 WL 3411869 (Tex. App. Aug. 5, 2021), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg held that Texas law mandates that a design professional expert offering opinions against another design professional must be licensed or registered in Texas.

In Joseph Riccardi v. Carl Little Construction Co., Inc., et al., 2021 WL 3137251 (Tenn. App. July 26, 2021), a Tennessee Appellate Court held that the statute of limitations and statute of repose defenses should be submitted to the jury when fraudulent concealment or equitable estoppel is at issue, even if there is no genuine dispute of material facts.

In RLI Insurance Company v. Architrave, Inc., 2021 WL 1863259 (D.S.C. May 7, 2021), a federal court in South Carolina held that a factual issue remained as to when an architect was required to put its insurer on notice of a potential claim.

Bobbitt Design Build (“Bobbitt”) was hired by Mount Moriah Missionary Baptist Church, Inc., (“the Church”) to construct a new worship center. Bobbitt hired Architrave, Inc. (“Architrave”) to design the worship center. Three (3) years after the project was completed, the Church sent two demand letters to all the entities that were associated with the project, including Architrave. The demand letters listed various problems with the HVAC system and water intrusion from the roof, which Architrave contended were unrelated to its work.  Architrave did not report these demand letters to its carrier, RLI Insurance Company (“RLI”).

In County of Saratoga v. Delaware Engineering, D.P.C., 189 A.D.3d 1926, 139 N.Y.S.3d 381 (3d Dept 2020), the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division held that an engineer’s contractual indemnity claim against the contractor was due to be dismissed, as the indemnity provision unambiguously and expressly excluded claims for damage to the “work itself.”

In Carlson, Brigance & Doering, Inc. v. Compton, 2020 WL 7233612 (Tex. App. Dec 8, 2020) the Court of Appeals of Texas held that a Certificate of Merit addressing the alleged negligence of an individual engineer does not have to separately address the employer’s alleged negligence arising out of the same acts or omissions. 

In Curtis Park Group, LLC, v. Allied World Specialty Insurance Co., 2021 WL 1022703 (D. Colo. March 17, 2021), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado held that a report produced by an engineering expert retained by the contractor was discoverable in an action between owner and its insurer, as the report was not created in anticipation of litigation and therefore was not work product.  

In D’Allessandro v. Lennar Hingham Holdings, LLC, 2020 WL 6438937 (Mass. Nov. 3, 2020), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held the statute of repose governing the claims for design and construction defects for a multi-building condominium project began to run when each building was opened for its intended use or was substantially completed, not when the first building was complete. The condominium in question consisted of twenty-eight (28) buildings built in twenty-four (24) phases between 2008 and 2015. Each building was issued a Certificate of Occupancy when the architect determined the building or units were “substantially complete.”

In Wright Construction Services, Inc.v. The Hard Art Studio, PLLC, 2020 WL 7906704 (N.C. App. Dec. 31, 2020), a North Carolina appellate court held that the “licensure defense,” which prevents a builder that is unlicensed at the start of a project from recovering in a breach of contract claim, does not apply to negligence claims against design professionals, and is limited only to a builder’s breach of contract claims against owners.

In Rochester Endoscopy and Surgery Center, LLC and Jaro Company, LLC v. DesRosiers Architects, PC, 2020 WL 6231823 (Mich. App. October 22, 2020), the Court of Appeals of Michigan granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the professional negligence claims against the architect. The Rochester Plaintiffs purchased a unit in a condominium, which they intended to convert to a surgical outpatient facility. Plaintiffs hired OYK Engineering & Construction (“OYK”) to serve as the Design-Builder for the project. OYK subcontracted with Desrosiers Architects, PC, (“Desrosiers”) to provide design and architectural services.

In Hinman v. ValleyCrest Landscape, Inc. and Aquatic Design & Engineering, Inc., No. 3:19-cv-551, 2020 WL 434161 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2020), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the fraud claims alleged against the engineer for lack of specificity in the pleading. 

In Town of West Seneca v. Kideney Architects, P.C., 2020 WL 5867490 (N.Y. App. Oct 2, 2020), a New York appellate court held a project owner’s claim against the architect accrued, and the statute of limitations began, upon completion of the project, rather than discovery of the damage.  Town of West Seneca, the project owner, contracted with an engineering firm for professional services on the project.  The engineering firm then contracted with Kideney Architects (“Kideney”) for architectural services.  The project was certified as substantially complete in 2002.

Plaintiffs continue to struggle in compliance with Certificate of Merit requirements in Texas. In TRW Engineers, Inc. v. Hussion Street Buildings, LLC, 2020 WL 4457975 (Tex. Ct. App. August 4, 2020), the Texas Court of Appeals held that an engineer’s deposition testimony, which was read into the record by the plaintiff, did not obviate the need for compliance with the certificate-of-merit requirement found in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002, and accordingly dismissed plaintiff’s unsupported petition.

In 22 Gramercy Park, LLC v. Michael Haverland Architect, P.C., 2020 WL 4141384 (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. July 20, 2020), a New York court held an architect that was sued for design defects could not seek common law indemnification from an engineer, but could seek contribution.

In Whitaker v. R2M Engineering, LLC, 2020 WL 2786941 (Tex. Ct. App, May 28, 2020), the Texas Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s alleged damages arose out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, triggering the Certificate of Merit requirements.

In Preyde One, LLC v. Hoffman Consultants, LLC, 2020 WL 908943 (Mich. App. Feb. 25, 2020), a Michigan appellate court ruled that a project owner's claim against a structural engineer was a malpractice claim, governed by the malpractice statute of limitations and untimely. Preyde One, LLC ("Owner") sued Glasers Lumber ("Glasers") for breach of contract for allegedly providing defective work and materials on the construction of a hotel. Glasers identified Hoffman Consultants, LLC ("Hoffman"), the structural engineer for the hotel, as a responsible non-party and Owner filed a Second Amended Complaint against Hoffman, alleging Hoffman negligently prepared the drawings and specifications and negligently inspected and supervised the structural work.

In Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc., 2019 WL 6207616 (Md. App. Nov. 21, 2019), the Maryland Court of Special Appeals held that an arbitration provision contained in a subsequent agreement may still apply to work performed under a prior agreement that did not contain a similar arbitration provision.

In WSA Group, PE.,PC v. DKI Engineering & Consulting USA PC, 2019 WL 7173322 (N.Y. App. Dec. 26, 2019), a New York appellate court held that the statute of limitations governing malpractice claims against architects and engineers in New York begins to accrue when the contract is complete and the professional relationship ends, rather than when the plaintiff incurs damages.

In Couvillion Group, LLC v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 2019 WL 6769614 (La. App. Dec. 11, 2019), Plaquemines Parish Government (“PPG”) contracted with Couvillion Group, LLC (“Couvillion”) to be the general contractor for the Project. PPG contracted with Professional Engineering Consultants Corporation (“PEC”) to provide engineering services for the project.

In Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. v. Singer Architects, Inc., 278 So. 3d 89 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019), Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals held an architect had sufficient supervisory control over a contractor to establish a duty of care.  Broward County (the “County”) hired Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. (“GNU”), a general contractor, for an improvement project at the Fort Lauderdale Airport (the “Project”). The County hired Singer Architects, Inc. (“Singer”) to provide consulting and administrative services for the Project.

In Rankin v. South Street Downtown Holdings, Inc., 2019 WL 3562167 (N.H. Aug. 6, 2019), the New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed whether the state’s Statute of Repose applied to indemnity and contribution claims against architects, or only applied to claims for direct losses.  The Court found the statute did apply and imposes a time limit on indemnity claims against architects.

In Demetro v. Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, 170 A.D. 3d 437 (N.Y. 2019), a New York Appellate Court addressed whether an architect’s failure to identify deviations from its designs subjected the architect to liability for personal injuries as a result of the defective condition. On a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court found there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a contractor’s deviation from the design, and subsequent failure to correct deviation, was an intervening and superseding cause which relieved the architect from liability.

In Novum Structures, LLC v. Larson Engineering, Inc., 2019 WL 1924878 (E.D. Wis. April 30, 2019), a Wisconsin District Court addressed whether an engineer’s sealing of design drawings makes the engineer the “Engineer of Record” and establishes a duty to verify the accuracy of the entire design. In 2014, Novum Structures, LLC (“Novum”) was hired to build a glass enclosed atrium. Novum prepared design drawings and supporting calculations for the atrium’s steel structure, but the drawings did not specify the type of welds that would be used to connect trusses to beams.

In Hayes v. Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc., 2019 WL 2621931 (Utah Ct. App. June 27, 2019), the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the economic loss rule, finding a property owners’ tort claims against a geotechnical engineer were barred. In 2004, a developer hired Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc. (“IGES”) to conduct a geotechnical investigation for a proposed subdivision. IGES concluded construction could proceed and the developer sold the lots to a third-party, who later sold an individual lot to Kim and Nancy Hayes (the “Hayes”) for construction of a home.

In D.R. Horton, Inc. – Jacksonville v. Heron’s Landing Condo. Assoc. of Jacksonville, Inc., 2018 WL 6803698 (Fla. 1st DCA Dec. 27, 2018), the District Court of Appeals of Florida, affirmed the trial court’s decision to allow expert testimony related to construction defects, even though the testimony was admitted pursuant to the Daubert standard, rather than the Frye standard.  The Court held the expert’s opinion was admissible under both Daubert and Frye. 

In Stapleton v. Barret Crane Design & Engineering, 2018 WL 985775, (2nd Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that contractual privity, or its functional equivalent, did not exist between an owner and engineering firm retained by the design-builder, because there was no contract between the parties and the parties did not communicate directly to sufficiently “link” them.

In Engineering and Terminal Services, L.P. v. TARSCO and Orcus Fire Protection, LLC, 525 S.W. 3d 394 (TX 2018), the Court of Appeals of Texas held the statutory requirement to file a Certificate of Merit along with a lawsuit based on professional negligence of an engineer does not apply to third party claims for contribution.

In U.S. for benefit of Bonita Pipeline, Inc. v. Balfour Beatty Construction LLC, et. al., 2017 WL 2869721 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal.), the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled the Spearin Doctrine, in which an entity providing plans or specifications is liable for deficiencies in the plans or specifications, applies to subcontractors in design-build projects, even when plans or specifications are by definition meant to be further refined by the subcontractor.

In Triangle Construction Company, Inc. v. Fouche and Associates, Inc., 218 So. 3d 1180 (Mississippi 2017), Triangle Construction Company, Inc. (“Triangle”) contracted with East Madison Water Association (“EMWA”) to build a water system in Madison and Leake Counties in Mississippi.  The contract designated Fouche and Associates (“Fouche”) as the project engineer, although Fouche was not a signatory to the contract.  Triangle nevertheless argued Fouche was a party to the contract because Fouche’s seal was affixed to the contract’s cover, was designated as the project engineer and was designated as the agent and representative of the owner.

In Zirkelbach Construction, Inc. v. DOWL, LLC, 402 P.3d 1244 (Mont. 2017), the Supreme Court of Montana ruled design professionals can contract to limit liability for a contract claim, even if the limitation is a nominal percentage of the overall fees paid, as long as the parties do not disclaim all liability outright. However, the Court held that the limitation did not apply to the negligence claim in the suit.

In Curtis Engineering Corporation v. Superior Court of San Diego, 16 Cal. App. 5th 542 (Cal. App. Ct. 2017), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of California addressed the impact of the relation-back doctrine on the certificate of merit law in professional negligence actions against design professionals.  California’s certificate of merit law, codified in the Business and Professions Code, Section 411.35, requires an attorney to consult with an architect or engineer in the same discipline before filing a complaint against a licensed architect or registered professional engineer and certify that, based on the consultation, there is reasonable and meritorious cause for filing the complaint.  If an attorney is unable to obtain a consultation prior to the running of the statute of limitations, the law provides that a certificate of merit may be filed within sixty (60) days after the filing of the complaint.

In Sierra Court Condominium Association v. Champion Aluminum Corporation, 2017 IL App (1st) 143364, 75 N.E.3d 260 (Ill. Ct. App. 2017), First District Appellate Court of Illinois reaffirmed architects and engineering firms are not subject to the implied warranty of habitability of construction, even in the event the developer and general contractor are insolvent. 

In Twist Architecture & Design, Inc. v. Oregon Board of Architect Examiners, 361 Or. 507, 395 P.3d 574 (Or. 2017), the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled that the “practice of architecture” includes the preparation of master plans drawn to scale for the development of a project, even if construction drawings or specifications are not ultimately produced. 

In Sedgewick Homes, LLC v. Stillwater Homes, Inc., 2017 WL 3221488 (W.D. NC. 2017), the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina ruled there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stillwater Homes, Inc. (“Stillwater”) infringed upon the copyrighted architectural plans of its competitor, Sedgewick Homes, LLC (“Sedgewick”). Sedgewick and Stillwater are home builders in North Carolina, who both interacted with two customers, the Bivins and the Shoemakers.

In Parkcrest Builders, LLC v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, 2017 WL 3394033 (E.D. LA. 2017), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held the Court could determine whether substantial completion had been achieved, despite a contract provision assigning this determination to the Architect.

In Sunset Beach Investments, LLC v. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 207 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017), the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida held an engineering intern could not be liable for professional negligence.  The Court explained an “engineer intern” could not be considered a professional because he does not maintain a license.

In Curtis v. Miss. Board For Architects, Prof. Engineers, Prof. Land Surveyors, and Prof. Landscape Architects, No. WD 80174, 2017 WL 2241516 (Mo. Ct. App. May 23, 2017), the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the Missouri Board of Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional Land Surveyors, and Professional Landscape Architects’ (the “Board”) disciplinary order against an architect for violations of a previous probation order.  Donald Dustin Curtis was an architect based in Arizona and licensed in multiple jurisdictions, including Missouri.  Mr. Curtis’s license was placed on probation in Missouri for one year after he failed to inform the Board of disciplinary action in Nevada.  As part of his probation Mr. Curtis was required to submit his plans for any projects in Missouri to the Board for review.

In Melden & Hunt, Inc. v. East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corporation, No. 16-0078, 2017 WL 2492006 (Tex. June 9, 2017), East Rio Hondo Water Supply Corp. contracted with Melden & Hunt, Inc. to provide engineering-design and project-supervision services for a new water-treatment plant in San Benito, Texas. Following substantial completion of the project, East Rio complained about the quality of water treated at the plant and attributed the water-quality issues to the plant’s design and construction. East Rio subsequently filed a complaint against Melden & Hunt asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

In Corwin v. NYC Bike Share, LLC, No. 14-CV-1285, 2017 WL 1399034 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2017), the Southern District of New York granted a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Alta Planning + Design + Architecture of New York, PLLC (“APD”) against the City of New York (the “City”) based on deviations from APD’s design of a bike share station which the Court concluded constituted an intervening cause of the alleged damage.

In United States of America v. Osborne, No. 4:11-CV-1029, 2017 WL 1135640 (N.D. Ohio March 27, 2017), the Northern District of Ohio denied a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Third-Party Defendant William R. Gray Associates, Inc. (“Gray”) based on the permit procurement obligations in Gray’s agreement for engineering services with Third-Party Plaintiff City of Willoughby (the “City”).

In Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. v. El Pistolón II, LTD., No. 15-0232, 2017 WL 727269 (Tex. Feb. 24, 2017), the Supreme Court of Texas held Texas’s recently amended Certificate of Merit statute requires a plaintiff to accompany his complaint not only with a sworn Certificate of Merit from an expert stating the claim has merit, but also, the Certificate of Merit must demonstrate the expert has knowledge of the area of practice to which the complaint relates.

In Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. v. Phoenix Insurance Co., Nos. 16-1176 & 16-1231, 2017 WL 244787 (6th Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s grant of Summary Judgment against the Engineer, Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. (“OHM”)...

 In Sandlin v. Harrah’s Illinois Corp., 2016 WL 4585932 (App. Ct. Ill. September 2, 2016), the Appellate Court of Illinois (the “Appellate Court”) affirmed a lower court’s grant of Summary Judgment for Cross-Claim Defendant Hnedak Bobo Group, Inc. (“HBG”)  dismissing Cross-Claim Plaintiff Harrah’s Illinois Corporation (“Harrah’s) claims for contribution.  

 In Town of Windsor v. Loureiro Engineering Assoc., 2016 WL 4007747 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 20, 2016), the Superior Court of Connecticut (the “Superior Court”) granted a Motion to Decide Questions of Law and to Dispense with a Jury Trial filed by Defendants Loureiro Engineering, Inc., Newman Architects, LLC, Herbert S. Newman, and Michael Raso (collectively, “Defendants”), the engineer and architects hired by Plaintiff the Town of Windsor (the “Town”) to design the Windsor High School auditorium.  

In Venturedyne, Ltd. v. Carbonyx Inc., 2016 WL 3402807 (N.D. Ind. June 21, 2016), the Northern District of Indiana (the “District Court”) granted a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Venturedyne, Ltd. d/b/a Scientific Dust Collectors (“SDC”), an engineer hired by Defendant/Crossclaimant Carbonyx, Inc. (“Carbonyx”), to design and manufacture dust collection systems. 

In Bd. of Managers of Film Exchange Lofts Condo. Ass’n v. Fitzgerald Associates Architects, P.C., 2016 WL 2841978 (Ill. App. May 11, 2016), the Appellate Court of Illinois consolidated three appeals and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions not to extend the implied warranty of habitability to architects. All three consolidated cases involved condominium boards bringing actions against architects for breach of the implied warranty of habitability, a claim typically alleged against the developer.

In Bronstein v. Omega Construction Group, Inc., 2016 WL 1577185 (N.Y. App. April 20, 2016), the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, affirmed a lower court’s denial of a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Michael T. Cetera, an architect hired by Plaintiffs to provide architectural services.  In 2006, Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Mr. Cetera to prepare plans for an addition to their residence.