Success or failure of claims involving design defects hinge upon expert testimony. In disputes involving claims against both architects and engineers, the circumstances of a project may often provide overlap in responsibilities and roles. Although the practices of architecture and engineering are distinct disciplines, there are circumstances where an expert trained in only one of these can provide opinions as to the standard of care for the other. A recent opinion issued in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida highlighted this overlap as related to expert opinions.
Orlando Health, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc., No. 6:24-CV-693-JA-LHP, 2026 WL 265982 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2026) involved a breach of contract action arising from construction administration and design defects for the construction of a hospital tower. Orlando Health, Inc. (“the Hospital”) contracted with HKS Architects, Inc. (“the Architect”) for architectural and engineering services pertaining to the design and construction of the project. The Architect contracted with BBM Structural Engineers, Inc. “(the Engineer”) for structural engineering services. Design defects related to drawings, calculations, and structural components were discovered during the construction and remediating the defects required repairs.
The Hospital filed suit against the Architect, who brought third party claims against the Engineer. The Hospital retained two experts to offer opinion testimony regarding the standard of care owed by the Architect and Engineer for the project. One of these experts was an architect and the other was an engineer. The Engineer moved to exclude certain testimony offered by the architect expert because the architect expert provided a report in which he opined both the Architect and Engineer breached the standard of care.
The Engineer argued that because the architect expert was not an engineer, he was not qualified to testify regarding the standard of care for structural engineers. The Court disagreed and found the underlying circumstances of the project created overlap in the functions of the architect and engineer, such that the architect expert could opine as to the standard of care owed by both the Architect and the Engineer. The Court highlighted the contract required the Architect provide engineering services pertaining to the design and construction of the project. To meet this contractual obligation, the Architect subcontracted with the Engineer. The Court held the architect expert’s opinion was formed without performing any design professional service requiring special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, or engineering sciences.