• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Daniel S. Gonzales

What you need to know about Commercial Real Estate | 408.280.0535

  • Home
  • About Daniel S. Gonzales
  • Documents of interest
  • Blog

Architects and engineers beware! Escaping construction defect litigation just got more difficult

July 29, 2014 by Daniel S. Gonzales Leave a Comment

defective construction lawsuitsThe California Supreme Court has just made it harder for architects, engineers and other design professionals to avoid being brought into defective construction lawsuits.

In Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, decided earlier this month, the Court ruled that architects that provide primary design services for residential construction projects owe a duty of care to future homeowners in those projects, regardless of whether they built the projects or directed their construction, and are not entitled to be summarily dismissed when those homeowners bring defective construction/design lawsuits. Previously, California courts had indicated that architects and similar service providers did not owe a duty of care to the ultimate house buyers—in other words, an architect’s conduct in the performance of its professional services would not be required to meet any reasonable standard of care with regard to the end purchasers, because the end purchasers were not among those classes of persons sufficiently connected to the architects’ services to be entitled to hold architects to any such standard.

In the Beacon case, however, the plaintiff’s lawsuit pleaded that the architects knew the units in the project would be sold to homebuyers as condominiums, were actively involved in coordinating the design and construction contractors and inspecting the progress of the project, and were paid $5 million for these services. Based on the claims pleaded, the Court concluded that the architect owed a duty of care to the future homebuyers because of, inter alia, the close connection between the architect’s conduct and the plaintiff’s injury, the limited size of the class of possible plaintiffs, and the substantial role of the architect in the construction of the project. The Court also noted that the work of the architect was clearly intended to benefit the future homeowners, and that it was foreseeable that the homeowners would be among the limited class of persons harmed by the negligent design and construction of the project. The case may be found at http://tinyurl.com/l2ykn9u

In view of the Court’s ruling in the Beacon case, architects and other design professionals may wish to consider expanding and strengthening the indemnity and liability limitation provisions contained in their professional service contracts. In this way, they can avail themselves of as much protection as possible against future lawsuits that they may not otherwise be able to escape due to Beacon. If you are an architect or other design professional and are considering taking such action, it would be worthwhile to have such provisions drafted and/or reviewed by experienced real estate counsel.

Filed Under: law suits, litigation

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Search

Sign up for Updates

  • Hidden
    MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Helping you avoid risk, maximize profit, and protect your long term real estate appreciation

Mr. Gonzales is in private practice, providing representation, advice and counsel in complex real estate, corporate, and business transactions on behalf of public and private institutions, businesses, and individuals.

This material has been prepared by Daniel S. Gonzales for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice. Neither delivery nor transmission of this material or the information contained herein is intended to create, and receipt thereof does not constitute formation of, an attorney-client relationship. The reader should not rely upon this information for any purpose without seeking legal advice from a licensed attorney. The information contained in this material is provided only as general information and is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete. Daniel S. Gonzales expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this material.

Recent Posts

  • 2023 update of California ADU laws
  • My own ADU project!
  • ND’s Fitzgerald Institute for Real Estate brings fresh vitality to housing issues
  • Mountain View and Los Altos Hills targeted for “builder’s remedy” projects
  • Protracted legal odyssey ends in victory for Lafayette housing development
Copyright © 2023 Daniel S. Gonzales