M-E Engineers, Inc. v. City of Temple
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 2963
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- City of Temple sued for HVAC design defects in a new police headquarters; project involved general contractor, architect, and M-E Engineers (with Tochihara as licensed P.E. and M-E principal)
- City attached a sworn certificate of merit by Bill M. Long attributing HVAC errors to the Engineer (Tochihara) but not naming M-E
- Tochihara and M-E moved to dismiss claiming Long's certificate failed to satisfy Chapter 150’s requirements
- City amended pleadings to include theories of negligence by Tochihara, vicarious liability of M-E, contract, and warranty claims
- District court denied the motion to dismiss; appeal followed with challenges to Long’s qualifications and the certificate’s scope under §150.002
- Court concluded the district court properly denied the motion to dismiss and affirmed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certificate of merit suffices to cover M-E | Long names Tochihara only; M-E not addressed | Chapter 150 defines 'licensed or registered professional' to include firms; certificate must address all entities involved | Overruled; certificate adequate to cover M-E as the employer |
| Whether Long is qualified to testify in the same area as Tochihara | Long is knowledgeable in HVAC engineering; should meet §150.002(a) | No explicit statement tying Long to Tochihara’s exact practice area | Overruled; Long is knowledgeable in the defendant’s area and meets §150.002(a) |
| Whether Long's certificate demonstrates the specified knowledge bases for §150.002(a)(3) | Certificate shows knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice | No explicit articulation of these bases in the four corners of the certificate | Overruled; certificate satisfies §150.002(a)(3) as a whole |
| Whether Long provided a factual basis for contract and warranty claims under §150.002(b) | Certificate should set forth facts for each theory, including contracts and warranties | Certificate focuses on errors/omissions in professional services; not required to detail contractual provisions | Overruled; focus is on errors/omissions in professional services; certificate adequate for theories against Tochihara and M-E |
| Whether certificate must address operative facts beyond professional errors/omissions | Certificate must include factual basis for each theory | Statute requires only verification of professional errors/omissions; not broader operative facts | Overruled; statute confines to professional errors/omissions; no broader factual pedantry required |
Key Cases Cited
- Benchmark Eng'g Corp. v. Sam Houston Race Park, 316 S.W.3d 41 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (abuse of discretion standard; statute interpretation of 150)
- S & P Consulting Eng'rs v. Baker, 334 S.W.3d 390 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011, no pet.) (en banc analysis of 2005 version; focus on errors/omissions in professional services)
- Natex Corp. v. Paris Indep. Sch. Dist., 326 S.W.3d 728 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2010) (section 150.002(a) qualifications not require face-tracking exact wording)
- Criterium-Farrell Eng'rs v. Owens, 248 S.W.3d 395 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2008, no pet.) (purpose of certificate to provide basis for merit; not evidentiary admissibility)
- Landreth v. Las Brisas Council of Co-Owners, Inc., 285 S.W.3d 492 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2009) (certificate sufficiency where affiant practices in same area as defendant)
- Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP, 2011 WL 1562891 (Tex.App.-Austin 2011) (recognizes knowledge shown through analysis even without explicit statement)
- Howe-Baker Eng'rs Ltd. v. Enterprise Prods. Operating, LLC, 2011 WL 1660715 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (analysis of 2009 amendments to §150.002(b))
- Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2002) (statutory construction in context; focus on merit rather than evidentiary rules)