Beacon Residential Community Ass'n v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
59 Cal. 4th 568
| Cal. | 2014Background
- SOM and HKS provided architectural and engineering services for The Beacon residential project in San Francisco, a 595-unit condominium development.
- Beacon HOA formed, recorded CCRs, and sued developers and design professionals for design defects causing unsafe and uninhabitable conditions, including solar heat gain and venting issues.
- Defendants acted as the project’s principal architects—participating in design, site inspections, design revisions, and monitoring construction for over $5 million in fees.
- Trial court sustained a demurrer, holding no duty of care to future homeowners absent privity; Court of Appeal reversed, finding a duty under common law and potential Right to Repair Act theory.
- Supreme Court granted review to address whether architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners absent privity and the Act’s role in defining that duty.
- Court analyzes Biakanja factors, contrasts with Weseloh, and holds that a principal architect on a residential project owes a duty to future homeowners even without actual building authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do design professionals owe a duty to future homeowners absent privity? | Beacon argues architects owe duty to homeowners under Biakanja and case law. | SOM/HKS contend no duty absent privity and final decision authority. | Yes; architect owes duty to future homeowners as principal design professional. |
| Is the Right to Repair Act dispositive of the duty issue here? | Act governs design standards and implies duty to homeowners. | Act does not create broader common-law duty beyond the statute. | Act not dispositive; duty exists under Biakanja/Bily even without it. |
| Does Weseloh control the outcome on architect liability to third parties? | Weseloh limited liability to certain design engineers with no construction role. | Weseloh should foreclose broader architectural liability to third parties. | Weseloh distinguished; defendants’ role here is not subordinate; duty recognized. |
Key Cases Cited
- Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647 (Cal. 1958) (factors for duty in absence of privity)
- Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 3 Cal.4th 370 (Cal. 1992) (auditor duty limited to reasonably foreseen beneficiaries)
- Aas v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.4th 627 (Cal. 2000) (expands third-party liability in construction context)
- Montijo v. Swift, 219 Cal.App.2d 351 (Cal. App. 1963) (architect's duty to foreseeably injured persons)
- Cooper v. Jevne, 56 Cal.App.3d 860 (Cal. App. 1976) (architects liable to condo purchasers for design/supervision)
- Huang v. Garner, 157 Cal.App.3d 404 (Cal. App. 1984) (design professionals liable for defective design and code violations)
- Weseloh Family Ltd. Partnership v. K.L. Wessel Construction Co., Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 152 (Cal. App. 2004) (limits architect liability where role is subordinate; summary-judgment context)
- Kriegler v. Eichler Homes, Inc., 269 Cal.App.2d 224 (Cal. App. 1969) (homebuyer protection against structural defects)