Steve And Karen Dontaelli v. D.r. Strong Consulting Engineers Inc.
74447-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | May 15, 2017Background
- Steven and Karen Donatelli hired D.R. Strong (engineers) in October 2002 under a written agreement to provide phased engineering services for a plat; the preliminary plat approval expired in 2007 and the project was never completed.
- Market collapse and foreclosure left the Donatellis without the property; they sued D.R. Strong for breach of contract, CPA, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.
- Prior appeals (including a Washington Supreme Court decision) left open factual questions about the scope of the parties’ contractual duties and remanded for further proceedings.
- On remand the trial court granted D.R. Strong partial summary judgment dismissing the negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims; the breach-of-contract claim proceeded to trial and the jury found for D.R. Strong.
- The trial court awarded D.R. Strong contractual attorney fees; Donatellis appealed those awards and the summary dismissals. The Court of Appeals affirms summary judgment on negligence and negligent misrepresentation and affirms the fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence — existence of independent duty beyond contract | Donatellis: facts and law (statutes, WAC) create an independent tort duty; summary dismissal improper | D.R. Strong: written contract (and deposition testimony) defines full scope of duties; no independent professional duty shown | Court: No genuine issue; duties limited to contract; summary judgment for D.R. Strong affirmed |
| Negligent misrepresentation — were future predictions actionable? | Donatellis: predictions about completion/costs were misrepresentations inducing reliance | D.R. Strong: statements were future promises/predictions, not representations of existing fact | Court: Future predictions are not statements of existing fact and cannot support negligent misrepresentation; summary judgment for D.R. Strong affirmed |
| Trial attorney fees — segregation requirement | Donatellis: D.R. Strong failed to segregate time defending negligence from contract claims | D.R. Strong: negligence and contract claims arose from same facts so segregation unnecessary; negligent misrepresentation (separate) was segregated | Court: Claims sufficiently related so no segregation required for negligence vs contract; fee award proper |
| Fee enhancement and appellate fees | Donatellis: upward rate adjustment improper; appellate fees not covered for tort defense | D.R. Strong: lodestar adjusted for counsel skill and market; contract broadly authorizes fees for defending claims | Court: Trial court acted within discretion on rate; appellate fees allowed under contract subject to RAP 18.1(d) |
Key Cases Cited
- Donatelli v. D.R. Strong Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 179 Wn.2d 84 (Wash. 2013) (prior supreme court ruling framing scope-of-obligations issue and remand)
- Donatelli v. D.R. Strong Consulting Eng'rs, Inc., 163 Wn. App. 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (earlier appellate decision in the same litigation)
- Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380 (Wash. 2010) (design-professional duty principles relied on in earlier briefing)
- Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 442 (Wash. 2010) (professional duty precedent referenced)
- Shook v. Scott, 56 Wn.2d 351 (Wash. 1960) (future promise vs. existing fact distinction for misrepresentation)
- Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 109 Wn.2d 107 (Wash. 1987) (negligent misrepresentation context distinguished by court)
- Bowers v. Transamerica Title Inc. Co., 100 Wn.2d 581 (Wash. 1983) (lodestar fee framework and factors for rate adjustments)