Legal Victory for Arizona Architects

{"version":"0.3.0","atoms":[],"cards":[],"markups":[["strong"],["i"],["b"],["em"]],"sections":[[1,"h3",[[0,[0],1,"Recently, the Arizona Supreme\nCourt considered a petition seeking a finding that contractors have the right,\nas an absolute matter of law, to sue design professionals for negligence,\nregardless of contractual privity or the existence of a special relationship.\nAIA Arizona, whose membership would be deeply impacted by an adverse ruling,\nagreed to act as a sponsor in opposition."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[0],0,"Amici Curiae AIA Arizona and the American Council of\nEngineering Companies Arizona (ACEC Arizona) sponsored W\u0026D Law, LLP to\nfile an Amicus Brief in the matter of "],[0,[1],1,"Cal-Am Properties, Inc. v. Edais\nEngineering, Inc. "],[0,[],1," In May 2022, W\u0026D Law, LLP, prevailed\non behalf of AIA Arizona and ACEC Arizona. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that no duty is\nowed to an owner where there is no contractual relationship with the engineer."]]],[1,"p",[[0,[2],1,"The\nfollowing description is from W\u0026D Law, LLP:"]]],[1,"p",[[0,[3],0,"Overcoming\nstaunch and widespread opposition from nine different national and regional law\nfirms representing the Arizona Builders Alliance, we successfully obtained an\nimportant legal victory for design professionals. The Arizona Supreme Court\nheld in "],[0,[1],1,"Cal-Am Properties"],[0,[],0," that design professionals\nlacking privity of contract with project owners do not owe a duty to those\nowners to reimburse them for purely economic damages. The opposition, in\nseeking to impose such a duty, asserted that the decades-old case of "],[0,[1],1,"Donnelly\nConstruction Company v. Oberg\/Hunt\/Gilleland "],[0,[],0,"entitled third parties\nnot in privity with a design professional to pursue negligence claims to\nrecover purely economic damages. They argued that although the\nforeseeability-based duty framework relied on by the "],[0,[1],1,"Donnelly"],[0,[],0," Court\nwas rejected in the 2007 case of "],[0,[1],1,"Gipson v. Kasey"],[0,[],0,", the "],[0,[1],1,"Donnelly"],[0,[],1," holding\nin support of such a duty is still good law that has been relied on by\ncontractors and project owners through the years. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[3],0,"We\nsuccessfully asserted that, in light of the "],[0,[1],1,"Gibson "],[0,[],0,"Court\u2019s\nunequivocal elimination of a foreseeability-based duty analysis, the duty\nelement must be based either on the existence of a recognized special\nrelationship or public policy, and the factors for neither basis are met when a\nproject owner attempts to recover purely economic damages from a design\nprofessional. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed and rendered a decision\nupholding the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of the design\nprofessional. The Court clearly stated that a duty must be based either on\na special relationship or public policy, and may not rely upon the notion of\nforeseeability, stating that "],[0,[1],1,"Donnelly"],[0,[],1," is no longer good\nlaw. "]]],[1,"p",[[0,[3],0,"This\nholding is an important legal victory for design professionals as it does away\nwith the notion that they owe a blanket duty to other project participants with\nwhom they did not contract. For years, many have operated under the assumption,\ngiven the holding in "],[0,[1],1,"Donnelly"],[0,[],1,", that a third party may pursue a\nnegligence claim against a design professional for economic damages despite the\nfact that there is no contractual relationship between the two. It is now clear\nthat this is not the case. In order for such a claim to survive, the claimant\nmust be able to establish that it either had a preexisting recognized\nrelationship with the design professional, or that there is a public policy\nembodied in a statute or the common law that establishes such a duty. In broad\nterms, such sources of duty are only found when there is physical harm to\npeople or property at issue, not purely economic damages."]]]]}