Engineers May Testify on Architect's Conduct
Kenneth Slavens | November 8, 2024
A lawsuit by a project owner against its architect led a South Carolina court to conclude that a professional engineer could testify against the architect within those limited areas where the two professions overlap. The case is Charles Blanchard Constr. Corp., Inc. v. 480 King St., LLC, 443 S.C. 165, 904 S.E.2d 182 (Ct. App. 2024).
Facts of the Case
The 480 King Street, LLC ("King"), was sued by it contractor on a project in South Carolina. King in turn sued Glick/Boehm & Associates, Inc. (GBA), the architect of record for the project.
Because King's lawsuit was filed against a design professional, under South Carolina statutes, King was required to file an affidavit executed by an expert witness specifying at least one negligent act or omission claimed to exist and the factual basis for the claim. These are often called "certificate of merit" statutes. In this case, King filed an affidavit from a professional engineer.
The expert engineer gave multiple depositions during discovery during the pendency of the lawsuit. During those depositions, he testified that he had no intention to offer professional opinions about the standard of care applicable to architects. However, the expert engineer felt comfortable testifying about the standard of care for a professional in providing "construction administration services, whether that be an architect or an engineer."
Defendant GBA moved to dismiss King's lawsuit because King's hired expert, the engineer, was not qualified to give an opinion about the standard of care applicable to GBA, an architect. In response, King argued the hired expert could testify as to the standard of care for construction administration services provided by either profession because of the similarities between the two.
The trial court judge concluded that letting an engineer testify as to whether an architect breaches the standard of care would defy the South Carolina statute, even though she understood the two professions at issue sometimes "overlap." The trial court dismissed King's action against GBA.
The Ruling by the South Carolina Court of Appeals
On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals found that if all the claims in King's complaint were grounded in professional negligence, the expert engineer's affidavit would have failed to meet the requirement of the South Carolina statute. As a result, the trial court would not have erred in dismissing the entire complaint. However, King raised breach of contract and warranty claims that arguably were not subject to the affidavit requirements of the South Carolina statute. The South Carolina Court of Appeals concluded that the breach of contract and warranty claims were improperly dismissed.
The more significant conclusion of the court of appeals was that the trial court erred in dismissing King's entire action against GBA. The court reasoned that an expert witness is defined as an expert who is qualified to testify as to the acceptable conduct necessary for the professional whose conduct is at issue in the lawsuit. The South Carolina statute provides that such affidavits may come from individuals with "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge which may help the trier of fact in understanding the evidence and determining a fact or issue in the case by reasons of the individual's study, experience, or both."
The South Carolina Court of Appeals agreed that architectural and engineering services do overlap in some instances—particularly in contract administration.
So, to the extent the trial court dismissed King's claims relating to contract administration services, the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling because an engineer may be properly qualified to testify about an architect's construction administration. However, to be clear, the court did not disturb the dismissal of King's negligent design and supervision claims if they required testimony by an expert qualified to address an architect's standard of care. King's expert engineer could not meet these qualifications.
Lessons Learned
The obvious takeaway from this holding relates to using expert affidavits to satisfy what are generally known as "certificate of merit" statutes. We know from this holding that courts believe the design professions can overlap in required expertise for some tasks and, as a result, expert witnesses may be given more leeway than expected.
The bigger lesson for those of us who litigate professional liability suits, either for or against design professionals, is a caution related to experts generally. We need to remember that, just because the expert holds a license in a different profession, they may still be qualified to render opinions that will impact you or your client. Do not fall into the trap of discounting an expert's opinion simply because the training and licensing is different. Look behind the testimony at the experience, expertise, and qualifications.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.
