Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Grace and Naeem Uddin, Inc. v. Singer Architects, Inc.

Florida Court of Appeals, Fourth District

August 28, 2019

GRACE AND NAEEM UDDIN, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant,
v.
SINGER ARCHITECTS, INC., BROWARD COUNTY, and ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John B. Bowman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-004946 (05) and 13-013834 CACE (02).

          David R. Elder and Kerry H. Lewis of Elder & Lewis, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

          Neil P. Robertson of Daniels Rodriguez Berkeley Daniels & Cruz, P.A., Coral Gables, for appellees.

          May, J.

         Whether a supervising architect owes a duty of care to a contractor hired by the county for an airport improvement project is the question asked in this appeal. The contractor argues the trial court erred in failing to apply Moyer[1] and granting final summary judgment for the architect. We agree and reverse.

         The county entered into separate contracts with the architect and the contractor for the development of an improvement project at the Fort Lauderdale Airport. The county's contract with the architect assigned the latter with consultant and administrative duties. The county's contract with the contractor concerned the scope of work and the architect's role as a consultant and administrator.

         As the project neared completion, the county terminated its contract with the contractor. The contractor filed suit against the county and the architect claiming breach of contract and professional negligence, respectively. The trial court consolidated the actions for discovery and trial.

         The architect moved for partial summary judgment, arguing it did not owe the contractor a duty of care and the contractor could not recover contract damages in tort. The trial court granted the architect's motion, concluding the architect did not owe the contractor a duty of care in its role as the county's consultant. From that partial summary judgment, the contractor now appeals.

         • The Architect/County Contract

         The contract between the architect and the county outlined the architect's role as "CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, AND INTERIOR DESIGN SERVICES." The contract designated the architect as a "Consultant." Article 10.20 declared the parties' intent not to "create any rights or obligations in any third person or entity under this agreement."

         Under Article 3, the "SCOPE OF SERVICES/TASKS/PHASES," the architect was responsible for: (1) visiting the site and attending construction events and meetings regularly; (2) conducting joint observations of the work with the county; (3) informing the county of the progress and quality of the work; (4) managing administrative records outlined in the contract; (5) assisting the county in determining the amounts owed to the contractor; and (6) certifying the contractor's evaluation for payment.

         The architect was to:

(1) interpret and give recommendations on disputes arising between the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.