lan/stv, a Joint Venture of Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc. and Stv Incorporated v. Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc.
435 S.W.3d 234 | Texas Supreme Court | 2014
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A general contractor sued an architect for errors in construction plans that increased the contractor's costs. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that contractors cannot sue architects for money damages caused by plan mistakes—only for physical damage or injury. This means contractors must look to their contracts with owners, not tort lawsuits against architects, to recover extra costs from design errors.
Key Takeaways
- •You cannot sue an architect directly for cost overruns caused by plan errors. Your remedy is through your contract with the owner.
- •The economic loss rule blocks tort claims for purely financial losses. Physical damage or injury is required for a successful tort case.
- •Protect yourself by including clear contract language with owners about who pays for design errors and how disputes are resolved.
The economic loss rule does not allow recovery and accordingly reverse the judgment.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue the architect if their plans cost me extra money to build?
No, not directly for money damages. Texas law blocks tort lawsuits against architects for purely financial losses. Your claim must go through your contract with the owner, not against the architect. Make sure your owner contract clearly assigns responsibility for design errors.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.