A property buyer brought suit against the developer and architect after the commercial building he purchased began showing the tell-tell signs of water intrusion.  The buyer originally instituted claims against only the developer, but after the developer filed a third party complaint against the architect for improper design, the buyer decided to add the architect to his complaint as well.

    The architect defended the purchaser's negligence claim by arguing he owed no duty to the purchaser because he only had a contractual relationship with the developer.  The architect cited several cases in support of his defense, suggesting that a design professional owes no duty to parties with whom he lacks privity.  The court distinguished these cases from the present case because there was actual property damage in lieu of mere economic damages.  The court found that a limited duty of care may still exist in spite of the fact that the parties are not in privity.  However, the complaint in this case failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a limited duty.  The court granted the purchaser leave to amend his complaint.

    In reference to the purchaser's claim of breach of implied warranty, the court determined that under Texas law, a design professional does not have a specific duty to design a building with good and workmanlike quality. Again the lack of privity issue posed a problem for the purchaser when the court determined that an owner cannot recover from a subcontractor for breach of implied warranty when the two parties lack a contractual relationship.

    This site and any information contained herein is for informational purposes only and is not to be construed as legal advice.  Seek a competent attorney for advice on any legal matter.