School Board of Broward County v. Pierce Goodwin Alexander & Linville
137 So. 3d 1059
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- School board contracted with architect for six-phase high school renovation design services; COIs arose from post-design code changes after construction began.
- Peer reviewer flagged fire-safety code issues; architect offered an alternative to a staircase, later conflicting with final building code interpretations.
- Building code official (board employee) had final authority on code interpretations; oral statements about approval were disputed.
- COI 51 required redesign to meet code; jury found no breach as to COI 51, while damages were awarded for other admitted-liability COIs; remittitur granted for seven COIs.
- Contract included indemnity clause 8.1.1 and other sections indicating elevated duties to comply with codes; dispute over whether indemnity covers first-party vs third-party claims.
- Circuit court instructed trial under a negligence standard due to contract interpretation; jury instructed accordingly and COI 51 verdict was no breach; appellate court reverses for new trial on COI 51 and addresses remittitur issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard of care governs COI 51 | Board argues breach of contract standard; architect argues negligence. | Architect contends ordinary–skill negligence standard; contract interpretation supports the negligence standard. | New trial required; contract is interpreted to require code-compliant design throughout, not mere negligence. |
| Whether indemnity clause 8.1.1 applies to first-party or third-party liability | Indemnity applies to third-party claims; damages arise from third-party liability. | Indemnity may limit or shape first-party damages under the contract. | 8.1.1 applies to third-party liability; first-party damages are not restricted by this indemnity, and contract must be construed to give effect to all provisions. |
| Whether circuit court improperly limited expert testimony and jury instructions on COI 51 | Jury should consider whether codes were violated; expert testimony on code interpretation should be allowed. | Inferred standard of care limited to negligence under contract interpretation; expert testimony should be limited accordingly. | Remanded for new trial with correct contract-based standard and properly admitted expert testimony. |
| Appropriateness of remittitur for COIs-liability-admitted | Remittitur improper; damages should reflect full jury verdict. | Remittitur supported where ‘first cost’ reduces damages and where verdicts are excessive. | Remittitur affirmed for COIs 46, 56, 57, 73, 93; remittitur reversed for COIs 11 and 19; remand for damages consistent with first-cost reduction where applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- CH2M Hill Se., Inc. v. Pinellas Cnty., 698 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (commercial-contract standard of care for design professionals)
- Robsol, Inc. v. Garris, 358 So.2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (architects must conform to codes in conformance with duty to client)
- Soriano v. Hunton, Shivers, Brady & Associates, 524 So.2d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (damages reduction for costs that would have been incurred had design been original)
- Lochrane Eng’g, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Inv. Fund., Ltd., 552 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (damages framework in professional-negligence cases with consequential costs)
- Laskey v. Smith, 239 So.2d 13 (Fla. 1970) (remittitur standard: appellate review of jury-damages authority)