237 So. 3d 1
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Lathan Company was general contractor on a public-school renovation; Jacobs served as the RSD’s contracted construction manager/project manager.
- Lathan sued (petition for mandamus, later amended) alleging Jacobs negligently failed to perform project-management duties (delayed RFIs/payments, refused certifications, poor inspections), causing delays and economic harm; also asserted LUTPA claims.
- Jacobs moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to Lathan (no privity) and LUTPA claims therefore fail; also raised prescription as alternative defense.
- Trial court granted Jacobs summary judgment, finding no duty; Lathan appealed.
- The First Circuit reversed and remanded, holding material factual disputes and persuasive precedent support recognizing a duty by a project manager under the circumstances, so summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jacobs owed a legal duty to Lathan despite no contractual privity | Jacobs, as licensed project manager with broad management/supervisory duties, had foreseeably binding impact on contractor and thus owed duty to conform to industry standards | No duty existed because Jacobs had no contract with Lathan, did not prepare design documents, and its contractual obligations ran only to the owner (RSD) | Reversed trial court: duty may exist under balancing test; factual issues preclude summary judgment — remand for trial |
| Whether Lathan’s negligence (professional undertaking) claim lacked factual support | Specific allegations (delayed RFIs/payments, failure to recommend substantial completion, poor QA) create triable issues linking Jacobs’ conduct to contractor harm | Jacobs’ affidavits say it did not perform or control the identified acts; many tasks were owner/architect responsibilities | Court found Lathan produced contract language and facts showing Jacobs had duties that could foreseeably harm Lathan — disputes for factfinder |
| Whether LUTPA claims fail absent duty | LUTPA claims flow from same alleged misconduct; if duty exists, LUTPA may proceed | Without duty, LUTPA and tort claims must be dismissed; alternatively, allegations do not meet LUTPA threshold | Because duty finding reversed, LUTPA dismissal was premature; remanded for trier of fact to address whether conduct meets LUTPA standards |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given discovery and credibility disputes | Lathan argued factual disputes and need for discovery; contract and other evidence created issues of material fact | Jacobs relied on affidavits showing limited role and absence of control; mover can point to absence of factual support | Court applied de novo review and concluded genuine issues exist; summary judgment improper; factual and credibility issues remain for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Calandro Dev., Inc. v. R.M. Butler Contractors, Inc., 249 So.2d 254 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1971) (architect/engineer may owe duty to third-party contractor absent privity when services foreseeably protect third parties)
- Colbert v. B.F. Carvin Construction Co., 600 So.2d 719 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (balancing test for imposing duty on design professionals toward nonprivity contractors)
- Harris Builders, L.L.C. v. URS Corp., 861 F. Supp. 2d 746 (E.D. La. 2012) (federal court applying Colbert balancing test to hold project/owner representative may owe duty to contractor under similar facts)