|
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
Plaintiff
Hewett-Kier Construction, Inc., a general contractor, entered
into a contract with the Palm Beach County School District
to build a project according to the plans and specifications
supplied by two Defendants, Lemuel Ramos and Associates,
Inc., an architectural firm, and one of its employees. Plaintiff
sued Defendants for malpractice, alleging that Defendants
violated the duty of care owed by professional architects
in the preparation of the design documents and that Defendants
knew their client would supply the design documents to the
general contractor, who would be injured if the plans were
inadequate. Plaintiff alleged that it suffered economic
losses as a result of the defective design documents. There
was no contract between Plaintiff and Defendants.
Defendants
moved to dismiss on the basis of the economic loss rule,
and the trial court granted the motion with prejudice on
the basis that there was no contract or special relationship
between Plaintiff and Defendants. The trial court also found
that, based on the design contract, Defendants were not
a supervisory architect and, as such, could not be liable
for purely economic injuries.
The
Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Florida recognizes
a common law cause of action against professionals based
on their acts of negligence even in the absence of a direct
contract between the professional and the aggrieved party.
Hewett-Kier Construction, Inc. v. Lemuel Ramos &
Associates, 775 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Further,
the economic loss rule does not bar an action for purely
economic losses when a special relationship under Restatement
(Second) of Torts §552 exists between the professional
and a third party who is affected by the professional's
negligent acts. The Court of Appeal held the contractor's
allegations that the architect prepared erroneous design
documents with the knowledge that the school board would
supply them to the successful bidder and that the successful
bidder would be injured if they were inadequate were sufficient
to establish a special relationship.
The
Court of Appeal also found that the trial court's reliance
on the design contract in ruling on the motion to dismiss
violated the rule that a court may not go beyond the four
corners of the complaint when evaluating the legal sufficiency
of the allegations in the complaint. The Court of Appeal,
however, did advise Defendants that if they believed the
design contract proved no special relationship existed between
Plaintiff and Defendants, Defendants could plead it as an
affirmative defense.
If you would like to receive legal reports and updates
more quickly, by e-mail, click
here and fill out the mailing list form.
For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Paul Berning in our San Francisco office at 415-369-7229 or at pwberning@thelen.com or contact your Thelen attorney. For more information about Thelen's Construction and Government Contracts Department, click here.
©2001 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
|
