Certificates of Merit serve a critical role in establishing professional liability claims against licensed design professionals. Texas is one of twelve (12) states that requires a plaintiff to file a Certificate of Merit with a lawsuit alleging professional negligence against architects, engineers, and other licensed professionals. This requirement arises out of the Texas’ legislature’s desire to curb frivolous and unmeritorious claims against certain types of professionals, by requiring a plaintiff to consult with and have their claims approved as meritorious by a similarly situated professional before filing.

Texas requires a plaintiff to file a Certificate of Merit with a Complaint alleging Professional Negligence against design professionals. See Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 150.002. The Certificate of Merit must be a sworn Affidavit from a licensed professional who actively participates in the same professional field as the defendant. The Affidavit must also specifically set forth each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, identify the alleged negligence, error, or omission by the professional, and provide the factual basis for each claim.  The application of this statute, however, was again weakened by the Texas Court of Appeals.

In Ryan Eng’g, Inc. v. Mond Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., Ryan Eng’g, Inc. v. Mond Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., No. 14-23-00960-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 168, the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court’s denial of Ryan Engineering, Inc.’s (“Ryan”) Motion to Dismiss a professional negligence claim asserted by Mond Homeowners Association, Inc. (“Mond”). Mond included an affidavit of a licensed architect and structural engineer with its Complaint, but Ryan argued the Affidavit made “collective assertions” of negligence and did not satisfy the statute’s specificity requirements.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court, emphasizing that while a Certificate of Merit must describe the facts giving rise to the claim, a plaintiff is not required to “marshal all of his evidence”.  The Court noted the code does not foreclose the defendant from challenging the sufficiency or admissibility of the opinions at trial.  The Court of Appeals rejected Ryan’s argument that the Affidavit only made global assertions and failed to specifically identify Ryan’s conduct and allowed the generalized affidavit to satisfy the statutory requirement.