A court decision has recently come out of the Georgia Court of Appeals with potentially
significant ramifications to the geotechnical engineering profession. Among other
things, in Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 267 GA. App. 45, 598 S.E.
2d 815 (2004), the court found that a geotechnical engineer could be liable under a
products liability theory.
Design Builder May Not Ignore Essential Design Features Contained
in Owner’s Design Requirements
In a recent decision, Sea Crest Construction Corp. v. United States of America, 59 Fed.
Cl. 615., the United States Court of Federal Claims determined that a design-builder
could not unilaterally choose to ignore essential design features that an Owner specified
in its contract requirements.
Massachusetts Superior Court Enforces Contractor’s Covenant
Not to Sue Architect in Public Bid Contract
In Castagna Construction Corp. v. Town of Brookline, No. 02-818-A (October 5,
2004) (“Castagna”) (Whitehead, J.), the Essex County (Massachusetts) Superior
Court recently upheld a covenant not to sue the architect in connection with a public
bid school construction project, granting an architect’s (“the Architect”) summary
judgment motion against the contractor plaintiff. Donovan Hatem LLP represented
the Architect in the lawsuit.
Tort Claims Precluded by Economic Loss
Rule Despite Duties Established in Interrelated
Contracts
In a recent decision, the Colorado Supreme Court
held that Colorado’s economic loss rule barred a subcontractor’s
tort claims that were based on duties set
forth in interrelated contracts. The decision is significant
in that it runs against the trend of courts
across the country to erode the rule.
Illinois Court Holds that Contract Language
Insulates Defendant form Liability in Action
for Professional Negligence
A recent, not yet published, decision from an Illinois
appellate court held that in an action for professional
negligence, a defendant’s duty will not extend beyond
that described in the contract for professional
services. In Browning v. Eckland Consultants, Inc.,
the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal
of plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract,
negligent misrepresentation and professional negligence
against defendant Eckland Consultants, Inc. plaintiff for value.
Michigan Court Interprets Statute Establishing
Time Periods to Bring Suits Against
Architects as Both Statute of Limitations
and Statute of Repose
The Court of Appeals of Michigan has determined
that a six-year statute of limitations applies to negligence
claims brought against architects and engineers
as opposed to the two-year statute of limitations
for professional malpractice. The appellate
court determined that the trial court erred in granting
summary disposition to a defendant architect because
the plaintiffs’ claim was brought after the expiration
of the two-year malpractice statute of limitations.
The plaintiffs appealed and argued that the
specific six-year statute of repose applicable to professional
negligence claims arising from personal
injury or property damage against architects, engineers
and contractors applies and, therefore, plaintiffs’
claim was not time-barred.
Court Finds that Contractor Who Properly
Follows Plans and Specifications is Not
Liable for Injuries
In a recent decision, the Rhode Island Supreme Court
held that “a contractor who builds in accordance
with the plans and specifications provided by an architect
or engineer and . . . in reliance on a valid
building permit, and who thereafter turns over the
work product to the owner should not be held liable
to third parties for personal injury allegedly caused
by the structure or instrumentality unless the plans
are so obviously dangerous that no competent contractor
would follow them.”
Pennsylvania Restricts Economic Loss Rule
as a Defense to Contractor Claim Against
Architects
In a recent decision of great significance in Pennsylvania,
and perhaps beyond, Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc.
v. The Architectural Studio, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 99 (2005),
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (the “Supreme
Court”) held that a contractor can maintain a tort action
for purely economic damages against an architect
despite lack of contractual privity. The decision
to a great degree eliminates the economic loss rule
as a defense for architects against contractor claims. |
