The enactment of Chapter 193 of the Acts of 2004 (the “Legislation”) on July 19, 2004
marks the most significant reform to public construction law in nearly a quarter century.
The Legislation, which only affects public projects, not only changes the scope
of construction law, but creates new opportunities for design and construction management
professionals. And with new opportunities come new risks of which professionals
should be cognizant. This article highlights the major changes set forth in the
Legislation while describing how these changes affect design and construction management
professionals.
Court Finds Proper Impleading of Architect by General Contractor
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently held that even
if two parties completed different tasks on a Project, if found to be liable for the
same damages, then one party can assert claims against the other party.
Court Holds that Use of Fictitious Party
Practice and Relation Back in Actions for
Statute of Repose was Inapplicable
In a recent decision, Greczyn v. Colgate-Palmolive,
842 A.2d 895 (N.J. Super. March 10, 2004), a New
Jersey appellate court was faced with determining
whether a defendant architectural firm was subject
to suit beyond the ten-year statute of repose under
the principles of fictitious party practice and relation
back.
State Court in Idaho Rules that Breach of Contract Action Against Engineer is Governed by Malpractice
Statute of Limitations
In Nerco Minerals Co. v. Morrison Knudsen Corp., 90 P.3d 894 (Idaho April 12, 2004), the Supreme Court of Idaho
(“Supreme Court”) affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant engineer on
grounds that plaintiff company’s actions were barred by the statute of limitations. The Plaintiff company alleged
breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment by the defendant engineer in the initial
phases of designing a heap leach pad. Heap leaching is a method used to salvage precious metals from low-grade
ore. The Plaintiff company argued that the breach of contract action was governed by the five-year statute of limitations;
however, the appellate court found that the claim should be characterized as a professional malpractice claim
thereby governed by the two-year statute of limitations provided by Idaho law.
Owner’s Architect has No Duty to Identify
Contractor’s Design Errors
A recent decision from the Supreme Court of Montana
held that an architect retained by an owner to
provide a preliminary design and to periodically review
the contractor’s progress did not owe a duty of
care to the contractor. In Glacier Tennis Club v. Treweek
Constr. Co., Inc. v. Jim Thompson d/b/a Arquitectnos,
et al., 2000 MT 70 (2004), the Supreme
Court of Montana specifically held that absent evidence
that the architect communicated professional
information with the intention or knowledge that
such information would be relied upon by a contractor,
no duty of care existed.
|
