GRACE & NAEEM UDDIN, INC. v. SINGER ARCHITECTS, INC.
[August 28, 2019] (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A supervising architect owes a tort duty of care to a general contractor on a construction project, notwithstanding the absence of contractual privity, when the architect exercises significant supervisory control and maintains a close nexus with the contractor, potentially impacting the contractor's economic well-being.
Facts:
- Broward County (the "County") entered into separate contracts with Singer Architects, Inc. (the "architect") and Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. (the "contractor") for an improvement project at the Fort Lauderdale Airport.
- The contract between the County and the architect designated the architect as a "Consultant" with responsibilities including site visits, observations, reporting to the County, managing administrative records, assisting in determining amounts owed to the contractor, and certifying contractor payments.
- The architect's duties further included interpreting disputes between the County and contractor, recommending rejection of non-conforming work, reviewing contractor submissions, coordinating change orders, conducting site observations, and managing project finalization by preparing punch lists and confirming successful demonstrations.
- The architect's principal described his role as the County’s “eyes and ears” for the project and admitted he recommended the contractor’s termination to the County, knowing his recommendation could lead to termination.
- The County’s project manager and contract administrator relied on the architect’s input for reviewing pay applications, change orders, time extensions, inspection of punch lists, and made payments to the contractor based on the architect’s recommendation.
- As the project neared completion, the County terminated its contract with the contractor.
Procedural Posture:
- Broward County entered into separate contracts with Singer Architects, Inc. and Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. for an airport improvement project.
- The County terminated its contract with Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. near the project's completion.
- Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. filed suit against the County (for breach of contract) and against Singer Architects, Inc. (for professional negligence) in the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County (trial court).
- The trial court consolidated the actions for discovery and trial.
- Singer Architects, Inc. moved for partial summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the contractor and that the contractor could not recover contract damages in tort.
- The trial court granted the architect's motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the architect did not owe the contractor a duty of care in its role as the County’s consultant.
- Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. appealed the partial summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a supervising architect owe a professional duty of care to a general contractor on a county improvement project, allowing the contractor to pursue a claim for professional negligence resulting in economic damages?
Opinions:
Majority - MAY, J.
Yes, a supervising architect owes a professional duty of care to a general contractor on a county improvement project, allowing the contractor to pursue a claim for professional negligence resulting in economic damages. The court relied on A.R. Moyer v. Graham, which established that a third-party general contractor, who may foreseeably be injured or sustain an economic loss proximately caused by the negligent performance of an architect's contractual duty, has a cause of action against the architect despite a lack of privity. Florida courts applying Moyer require the existence of "supervisory duties" and a "close nexus" between the architect and contractor. Here, the architect's contract with the County and the deposition testimony demonstrated significant supervisory control, including recommending work stoppage, having near absolute authority regarding contractor payments, and being the County's 'eyes and ears' on the project, which showed a strong influence over the contractor's economic vitality. The court distinguished this case from others where architects lacked definitive supervisory control or the requisite nexus. The contract clause disclaiming third-party beneficiary rights was deemed inconsequential because Moyer established tort liability based on foreseeability of harm, independent of contractual privity. Furthermore, the architect's argument that the contractor could not recover tort damages for economic loss because it was also pursuing contractual damages against the county was premature, as liability had not yet been determined, making it a post-judgment issue.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the application of the Moyer doctrine in Florida, emphasizing that an architect's de facto and de jure supervisory control, particularly over a general contractor's payments and project performance, establishes a tort duty of care even without direct contractual privity. The case provides crucial guidance on what constitutes a 'close nexus' and 'supervisory duties,' demonstrating that the power of economic influence (like payment certification) can be as significant as direct authority to stop work. This ruling expands potential liability for supervising architects to contractors, highlighting the importance of their professional responsibilities and the foreseeability of economic harm they can cause, regardless of contractual disclaimers for third-party beneficiaries.
