Precision Pipeline, LLC v. Trico Surveying & Mapping, Inc.
712 F. App'x 144
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Dominion hired Trico to survey/map a pipeline route and G-A-I for environmental consulting; Trico’s drawings were provided to bidders, including Precision.
- Trico’s contract required identification of above-ground foreign crossings and underground crossings only if marked above ground; G-A-I was not required to add crossing info.
- Precision won the bid but warned in its bid letter that unknown pipelines might exist and proposed negotiating crossing pricing if selected; no such negotiation occurred.
- During construction Precision encountered 357 foreign crossings though Trico’s drawings showed 89, increasing Precision’s costs substantially.
- Precision sued Trico and G-A-I for negligent misrepresentation under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 as adopted in Bilt‑Rite; District Court granted summary judgment for defendants and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed Precision a duty under Bilt‑Rite/§552 to identify ~85% of foreign crossings | Trico/G‑A‑I knew drawings would be relied on by bidders/contractors and thus owed a duty to identify industry‑standard percentage of crossings | No contract privity with Precision; defendants’ contractual duties to owner did not impose broader duties to third‑party contractors to identify unrequired features | Court: No duty owed — Bilt‑Rite liability is limited and arises from breach of duties the professional owed the owner; cannot be expanded to impose open‑ended duties to unknown third parties |
| Whether district court erred by using common‑law duty factors when applying Bilt‑Rite | Bilt‑Rite alone controls; district court improperly supplanted it with broader common‑law duty analysis | Following Bilt‑Rite, courts may examine common‑law duty factors to define §552’s scope; such analysis is proper | Court: District Court properly considered common‑law duty factors in deciding whether to extend Bilt‑Rite |
| Whether claim was time‑barred (statute of limitations) | District court incorrectly applied limitations bar | District court correctly found suit untimely | Court: Did not reach merits because no duty; even if Precision were correct on limitations, affirmance would stand |
| Whether Precision justifiably relied on Trico’s drawings | Precision reasonably relied on drawings for bidding decisions | No reasonable jury could find justifiable reliance given limits in drawings and Precision’s bid warning | Court: Did not resolve reliance issue because lack of duty dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilt‑Rite Contractors, Inc. v. The Architectural Studio, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (adopting Restatement §552 and limiting negligent‑misrepresentation liability for design professionals to a narrow class of foreseeable third‑party users)
- S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2013) (statement of summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Davidson & Jones, Inc. v. County of New Hanover, 255 S.E.2d 580 (N.C. App. 1979) (reasoning adopted by Bilt‑Rite regarding contractor claims against design professionals)