Moransais v. Heathman and Its Aftermath

The decision in Moransais v. Heathman in 1999 changed the way design professionals can be held accountable for their mistakes in construction projects. Before this decision, it was difficult for people to sue architects and engineers for economic damages caused by their negligence. But now, the Florida Supreme Court has allowed these lawsuits to move forward, even if there was no direct contract between the professional and the person who suffered the damages. This means that design professionals can be sued for their mistakes, even if the damages are purely economic and there was no direct agreement between them and the person suffering the losses. This decision opens up new possibilities for holding design professionals accountable for their mistakes in construction projects. The court is saying that they regret the confusion caused by their previous rulings on the economic loss rule (ELR). They admit that their previous decisions have been criticized and have led to the rule being applied in situations beyond what was originally intended. They also clarify that the ELR should not prevent people from suing for neglect in professional services, and should mainly be used in product liability cases. In simple terms, the courts have made decisions that limit the economic loss rule (ELR) in certain cases. For example, in the case of Comptech International, Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park Ltd., the court allowed a lawsuit against a landlord for negligent construction that violated building codes. The court also approved a case that held the ELR cannot be used to prevent a statutory cause of action for damages resulting from a violation of building codes. Other cases have also limited the application of the ELR in favor of statutorily created causes of action. In the case Stone’s Throw Condominium Association, Inc. v. Sand Cove Apartments, Inc., the court allowed the condominium association to sue the architects for saying they met building codes when they didn’t. They said this was okay because the architects were professionals and the association didn’t have a direct contract with them. However, in a different case, Monroe v. Sarasota County School Board, the court didn’t allow a teacher to sue the school board for leaving his name off a list of potential employees. They said that the earlier case should only apply to professionals and not to other situations. Architects and engineers can now be held accountable for their mistakes in preparing plans and specifications, even if they are not directly contracted by the party affected. This change in the law means that those who suffer because of poorly prepared designs can now sue the professionals responsible. This shift is a result of recent court decisions that have limited the reach of legal doctrines that protected these professionals in the past. This article was written by a lawyer who specializes in construction law.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/moransais-v-heathman-and-its-aftermath/