NEWS

SORT BY PRACTICE AREAS:
ALL
  • ALL
  • Architects and Engineers/Design Professionals
  • Construction
  • Fair Housing and Public Accommodation
  • General Liability
  • Insurance Fraud/Special Investigations
  • Employment
  • Professional Liability
  • Coverage
  • Environmental
  • Medical & Healthcare
  • Securities
  • Worker's Compensation
There are no articles currently for that practice area!
architects and engineers
NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT RULES STATUTE OF REPOSE APPLIES TO INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS AGAINST ARCHITECTS

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.





architects and engineers
ARCHITECT’S NEGLIGENT INSPECTION EXPOSES HIM TO LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY

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.





architects and engineers
ENGINEER DID NOT ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL ASPECTS OF DESIGN WHEN HE STAMPED THE DRAWINGS THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A WELD DESIGN

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.





architects and engineers
UTAH COURT OF APPEALS RULES ECONOMIC LOSS RULE BARS PROPERTY OWNERS’ CLAIMS AGAINST GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FIRM

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.





architects and engineers
TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULES ENGINEER’S CONDUCT EVIDENCED INTENTIONAL WAIVER OF CERTIFICATE OF MERIT REQUIREMENT
In LaLonde v. Gosnell, 2019 WL 2479172 (Tex. June 14, 2019), the Texas Supreme Court held an engineer’s engagement in the judicial process, through the completion of discovery and until one month before trial, waived the Certificate of Merit requirements.




architects and engineers
FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT HOLDS STATUTE OF REPOSE DOES NOT APPLY TO CLAIM ALLEGING NEGLIGENT INSPECTION
In Manney v. MBV Engineering, Inc., 2019 WL 2079379 (Fla. 5th DCA May 10, 2019), the Fifth District Circuit Court of Appeals of Florida held the statute of repose did not apply to a homeowner’s claim against an engineer for negligently inspecting a newly constructed home because the inspection did not qualify as the design, planning or construction of an improvement to real property.




architects and engineers
MAINE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT HOLDS ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE PRECLUDES NEGLIGENCE ACTION
In Fletch’s Sandblasting & Painting, Inc. v. Fay, Spofford, and Thorndike LLC, 2019 WL 847731 (D.Me. Feb. 21, 2019), the Federal District Court held that a subcontractor that was not in contractual privity with an engineer could not seek to recover its economic losses caused by the engineer’s alleged negligent design due to the economic loss doctrine.




architects and engineers
MISSISSIPPI SUPREME COURT RULES ENGINEER DID NOT HAVE DUTY TO WARN OF DANGEROUS CONDITIONS
In Waltman v. Engineering Plus, Inc., 2019 WL 1071533 (Miss. March 7, 2019), the Mississippi Supreme Court held that an engineering firm providing engineering services for a roof repair did not have a duty to warn a roofing company’s employee of a dangerous condition.




architects and engineers
RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT RULES ENGINEER THAT PREPARED DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC BIDDING DID NOT OWE DUTY TO GENERAL CONTRACTOR
In John Rocchio Corporation v. Pare Engineering Corporation, 2019 WL 575822 (R.I. Feb 13, 2019), the Warwick Sewer Authority (“WSA”) contracted with Pare Engineering Corporation (“Pare”) to provide pre-bid services, including preparing a Request For Proposal (“RFP”) to be provided to general contractors submitting bids.  Pare completed the RFP and WSA received bids from five companies.  John Rocchio Corporation (“Rocchio”) submitted the lowest bid and DiGregorio, Inc. (“DiGregorio”) submitted the second lowest bid.




architects and engineers
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS RULES ENGINEERS MAY NOT PROVIDE CERTIFICATES OF MERIT IN SUITS AGAINST ARCHITECTS
In Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P. v. Hill & Frank, Inc., 2018 WL 6613656 (Tex. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2018), the Texas Court of Appeals held an engineer’s affidavit does not satisfy the Certificate of Merit requirement in a suit against an architect.




architects and engineers
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF FLORIDA UPHELD THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY PURSUANT TO DAUBERT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY WAS NOT BASED ON NEW SCIENTIFIC METHODS

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





architects and engineers
PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT HOLDS THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIRD PARTY CLAIMS RELATED TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
In Kelly Systems, Inc. v. Leonard S. Fiore, Inc., 2018 WL 5629644 (Pa. Super. Ct. October 31, 2018), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held the requirement to file a Certificate of Merit to support a professional negligence claim does not apply to third party complaints.




architects and engineers
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT AGGREGATE ANALYSIS DOES CONSTITUTE THE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING
In Ronald R. Wagner & Co., LP v. Apex Geoscience Inc. and Braun Intertec Corporation, 2018 WL 4344713 (Tex. Ct. App., Sept. 18, 2018), the Texas Court of Appeals held that preparation of an aggregate analysis report was not exempt from the Texas Engineering Practice Act.  Ronald R. Wagner & Co., LP (“Wagner”), a contractor specializing in the application of pavement sealer and pavement surface treatment, bid a road project for the Texas Department of Transportation (“TXDOT”).  Wagner received quotes for materials for the project from Advantage Asphalt of Lubbock, LLC (“Advantage”) and Advanced Pavement Maintenance, Ltd. (“Advanced”), which offered to supply Wagner with B-4 Aggregate.  Apex Geoscience, Inc. (“Apex”), who was acquired by Braun Intertec Corporation (“Braun”), issued an Aggregate Analysis Report finding the B-4 aggregates met the TXDOT specifications for the project.




architects and engineers
LOUISIANA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RULES CONTRACTOR COULD NOT RECOVER FOR ACTS OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION MADE BY ARCHITECT IN GOOD FAITH
In Patriot Contracting, LLC v. Star Insurance Company, 2018 WL 1123586 (U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. La.), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that exculpatory clauses in the general contract benefitting the architect were enforceable.




architects and engineers
DESIGN PROFESSIONALS MAY OWE A DUTY DIRECTLY TO CONTRACTORS FOR DEFECTIVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
In Suffolk Construction Co., Inc v. Rodriquez Quiroga Architects, et al., 2018 WL 1335185 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla. Mar 15, 2018), the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that an architect and engineer breached owed a duty to the contractor by providing design plans which the contractor relied upon.




architects and engineers
INDIANA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT CLARIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION OF ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE
In City of Whiting, Indiana v. Whitney, Bailey, Cox, & Magnani, LLC, 2018 WL 1400890 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Ind. March 20, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that an owner’s tort claim for damage caused by the failure of a retaining wall designed by a subconsulting engineering firm was barred because all claimed damages were to the overall project and therefore barred by Indiana’s economic loss doctrine.




architects and engineers
THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN HOLDS THAT AN ARCHITECT OWED NO COMMON LAW DUTY TO OWNER FOR ALLEGED PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
In Auburn Hills Tax Increment Finance Authority v. Haussman Construction Co., 2018 WL 385057 (Mich. Ct. App. January 11, 2018), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the owner of a construction project could not maintain a professional negligence claim against the architect for failing to adequately review payment applications.




architects and engineers
THE SECOND CIRCUIT HOLDS A PROVISION FOR SEALED DRAWINGS DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY LINK THE OWNER AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL FOR PURPOSES OF CONTRACTUAL PRIVITY EQUIVALENCE TO ALLOW A DIRECT SUIT BY THE OWNER AGAINST THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL

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.





architects and engineers
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS HOLDS THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIRD PARTY CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS

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.





architects and engineers
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT EXTENDS SPEARIN DOCTRINE TO A DESIGN BUILD PROJECT

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.





architects and engineers
MISSISSIPPI COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS CLAIMS AGAINST ENGINEER ARE BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

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.





architects and engineers
SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA RULES LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS ENFORCEABLE IN A CONTRACT ACTION AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONTRACT AWAY ALL LIABILITY, BUT NOT IN A PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION

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.

architects and engineers
CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS HOLDS THAT THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CERTIFICATE OF MERIT REQUIREMENT IN PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS

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.

architects and engineers
ILLINOIS COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS DESIGN PROFESSIONALS NOT LIABLE FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DESPITE CONTRACTOR’S INSOLVENCY

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. 




architects and engineers
OREGON SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE INCLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF MASTER PLANS

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. 




architects and engineers
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ANALYZES ARCHITECTURAL COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT BETWEEN TWO HOMEBUILDERS

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.




architects and engineers
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION IS DETERMINABLE BY COURTS DESPITE ARCHITECT’S OPINION

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.




architects and engineers
FLORIDA COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINES DESIGN PROFESSIONAL MUST HOLD LICENSE TO BE SUED FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

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.




architects and engineers
MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS INTERPRETS STATUTE REGARDING WHAT IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE

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.


architects and engineers
SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS CLARIFIES HOW CERTIFYING EXPERT MAY DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL’S AREA OF PRACTICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT STATUTE

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.




architects and engineers
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GRANTS AN ARCHITECT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST CROSS CLAIMS FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION BASED ON CONSTRUCTION DEVIATIONS FROM THE ARCHITECT’S DESIGN

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.




architects and engineers
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO DENIES A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE PLAIN MEANING OF AN ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT

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”).




architects and engineers
TEXAS’S CERTIFICATE OF MERIT STATUTE REQUIRES CERTIFYING EXPERT TO DEMONSTRATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEFENDANT DESIGN PROFESSIONAL’S AREA OF PRACTICE

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.




architects and engineers
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS A LOWER COURT’S DECISION GRANTING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCLUSIONARY PROVISION IN A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY.

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”)...

architects and engineers
COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY REVERSES A LOWER COURT’S DECISION GRANTING A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE.
In D.W. Wilburn, Inc. v. K. Norman Berry Associates, Architects, PLLC, No. 2015-CA-1254-MR (Ky. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016), the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Third-Party Defendant K. Norman Berry Associates, Architects, PLLC, the architect hired by the Oldham County Board of Education to design the North Oldham High School.
architects and engineers
APPELLATE COURT AFFIRMS GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON ILLINOIS’ CONTRIBUTION ACT

 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.  

architects and engineers
SUPERIOR COURT OF CONNECTICUT GRANTS DEFENDANT ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO DECIDE QUESTIONS OF LAW AND TO DISPENSE WITH JURY TRIAL BASED ON THE STATUTE OF REPOSE

 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.  

architects and engineers
DISTRICT COURT GRANTS ENGINEER’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS BASED ON THE ECONOMIC LOSS DOCTRINE

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. 

architects and engineers
ILLINOIS APPELLATE COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY TO ARCHITECTS

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.

architects and engineers
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, AFFIRMS TRIAL COURT ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ARCHITECT’S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, APPLYING THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE

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.

NEWSLETTER
VISIT US