104 So. 3d 84
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is a contract dispute arising from a public works project at Port Fourchon, Louisiana, where the Port, James Construction, and Picciola settled their claims against each other while reserving rights against Picciola.
- Picciola & Associates, Inc. was engaged by the Port to provide professional engineering services including design and construction-phase duties and Port-representative authority.
- The Delmar Site portion of the project triggered a stipulation-damages clause ($2,000 per day) and a series of plan changes and time extensions affecting the contract completion date.
- Contract time was originally 300 days; relocation of the Delmar Site and subsequent plan changes extended time, and time-related damages were withheld by the Port for Delmar Site delays.
- James and the Port settled proceedings but James asserted claims against Picciola for negligent design, defective plans, misrepresentation, and delays; Picciola moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Picciola’s motion; the appellate court reversed and remanded, recognizing genuine issues of material fact and allowing tort-based claims to proceed against Picciola.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by engineer to contractor | James argues Picciola owed independent duties to James. | Picciola contends it acted as the Port’s agent and owed no duty to James. | Absent privity, contract claims barred; tort duty allowed; genuine issues remain. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on ex delicto claims | James contends there is unrefuted evidence of negligence against Picciola. | Picciola argues no triable issue exists; no breach of duty proven. | Summary judgment improper; issues of material fact remain. |
| Existence of genuine issues of material fact and adequacy of proof | James points to conflicting testimony and plan changes showing negligence and causation. | Picciola argues evidence fails to prove breach of duty. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude dismissal and require remand for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pittman Construction Co. v. City of New Orleans, 178 So.2d 812 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1965) (duty of professional to exercise standard care)
- Calandro Development, Inc. v. R.M. Butler Contractors, Inc., 249 So.2d 254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1971) (duty of professionals; burden on plaintiff to prove standard of care)
- Gurtler, Hebert, and Co., Inc. v. Weyland Machine Shop, Inc., 405 So.2d 660 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1981) (tort claim possible where damages arise from defective work; lack of privity not fatal to tort claim)
- M.J. Womack, Inc. v. House of Representatives of State, 509 So.2d 62 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987) (architect as supervisor; independent professional duty to protect owner’s interests)
- Standard Roofing Co. of New Orleans v. Elliot Construction Company, Inc., 535 So.2d 870 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1988) (design professionals may be liable in tort absent privity)
- Young v. City of Plaquemine, 818 So.2d 892 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2002) (architect’s duty to subcontractor; professional duty independent of contract)
- Stroder v. Horowitz, 775 So.2d 1175 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000) (questions of negligence not usually disposed of on summary judgment)
- McGill v. Cochran Sysco Foods, Div. of Sysco Corp., 690 So.2d 952 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997) (negligence questions may preclude summary judgment)
- DeStevens v. Harsco Corp., 652 So.2d 1054 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1995) (analysis of professional duty and negligence)
- Granda v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 927 So.2d 326 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2006) (affirming limits on summary judgment where reasonableness issues exist)