Is an expert’s report necessary before one can sue a professional engineer for malpractice?
Generally, Texas law does require that a person claiming malpractice against a professional engineer must also file an “expert report.” The Texas Legislature passed the following statute that gives professional engineer’s this added “defense”:
Sec. 150.002. Certificate of Merit.
(a) In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, the plaintiff shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect, or registered professional land surveyor who:
(1) is competent to testify;
(2) holds the same professional license or registration as the defendant; and
(3) is knowledgeable in the area of practice of the defendant and offers testimony based on the person's:
(A) knowledge;
(B) skill;
(C) experience;
(D) education;
(E) training; and
(F) practice.
(b) The affidavit shall set forth specifically for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the licensed or registered professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect, or registered professional land surveyor shall be licensed or registered in this state and actively engaged in the practice of architecture, engineering, or surveying.
(c) The contemporaneous filing requirement of Subsection (a) shall not apply to any case in which the period of limitation will expire within 10 days of the date of filing and, because of such time constraints, the plaintiff has alleged that an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect, or registered professional land surveyor could not be prepared. In such cases, the plaintiff shall have 30 days after the filing of the complaint to supplement the pleadings with the affidavit. The trial court may, on motion, after hearing and for good cause, extend such time as it shall determine justice requires.
(d) The defendant shall not be required to file an answer to the complaint and affidavit until 30 days after the filing of such affidavit.
(e) The plaintiff's failure to file the affidavit in accordance with this section shall result in dismissal of the complaint against the defendant. This dismissal may be with prejudice.
(f) An order granting or denying a motion for dismissal is immediately appealable as an interlocutory order.
(g) This statute shall not be construed to extend any applicable period of limitation or repose.
(h) This statute does not apply to any suit or action for the payment of fees arising out of the provision of professional services.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002.
Labels
- Affirmative Defenses
- Appeals
- Attorneys' Fees
- Contracts
- Copyright
- Damages
- Discovery
- Employees
- Employers
- Equity
- Evidence
- Fraud
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Insurance Claims
- Jurisdiction
- Lost Profits
- Malpractice
- Mandamus
- Mistake
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Partners
- Partnerships
- Privileges
- Prospective Contracts
- Proximate Cause
- Quantum Meruit
- Remedies
- Shareholder Rights
- Special Appearance
- Specific Performance
- Statutes of Limitations
- Texas Theft Liability Act
- Tortious Interference
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark
- Unfair Competition by Misappropriation
Monday, August 17, 2015
Sunday, August 16, 2015
The Economic Loss Rule
What is the Economic Loss Rule?
“[T]here is not one economic loss rule broadly applicable throughout the field of torts, but rather several more limited rules that govern recovery of economic losses in selected areas of the law.” Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 415 (Tex. 2011)(citations omitted). Generally, “the prevailing rule in America [is that] a plaintiff may not recover for his economic loss resulting from bodily harm to another or from physical damage to property in which he has no proprietary interest.” See, e.g., Fleming James, Jr., Limitations on Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal, 25 Vand. L. Rev. 43, 43 (1972) “In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property - a doctrine we have referred to as the economic loss rule. The rule serves to provide a more definite limitation on liability than foreseeability can and reflects a preference for allocating some economic risks by contract rather than by law. But the rule is not generally applicable in every situation; it allows recovery of economic damages in tort, or not, according to its underlying principles.” Lan/STV v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 435 S.W.3d 234, 235 (Tex. 2014)(footnotes omitted). One of "[t]he underlying purpose[s] of the economic loss rule is to preserve the distinction between contract and tort theories in circumstances where both theories could apply." Lan/STV, 435 S.W.3d at 240 (citing Vincent R. Johnson, The Boundary-Line Function of the Economic Loss Rule, 66 ash. & Lee L. Rev. 523, 546 (2009)(footnotes omitted) (quoting Stewart I. Edelstein, Beware the Economic Loss Rule, Trial, June 2006, at 42, 43 (2006))). “The economic loss rule is a doctrine that limits the recovery of purely economic damages in an action for negligence. Lan/STV v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 435 S.W.3d 234, 235 (Tex. 2014) ("In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property[.]"); see also Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City f Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 415 (Tex. 2011)("[P]arties may be barred from recovering in negligence or strict liability for purely economic losses."). Texas courts have generally applied the economic loss rule in cases involving defective products and in cases involving the failure to perform a contract.” Clark v. PFPP, Ltd. Partnership, 455 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.).
“[T]here is not one economic loss rule broadly applicable throughout the field of torts, but rather several more limited rules that govern recovery of economic losses in selected areas of the law.” Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 415 (Tex. 2011)(citations omitted). Generally, “the prevailing rule in America [is that] a plaintiff may not recover for his economic loss resulting from bodily harm to another or from physical damage to property in which he has no proprietary interest.” See, e.g., Fleming James, Jr., Limitations on Liability for Economic Loss Caused by Negligence: A Pragmatic Appraisal, 25 Vand. L. Rev. 43, 43 (1972) “In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property - a doctrine we have referred to as the economic loss rule. The rule serves to provide a more definite limitation on liability than foreseeability can and reflects a preference for allocating some economic risks by contract rather than by law. But the rule is not generally applicable in every situation; it allows recovery of economic damages in tort, or not, according to its underlying principles.” Lan/STV v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 435 S.W.3d 234, 235 (Tex. 2014)(footnotes omitted). One of "[t]he underlying purpose[s] of the economic loss rule is to preserve the distinction between contract and tort theories in circumstances where both theories could apply." Lan/STV, 435 S.W.3d at 240 (citing Vincent R. Johnson, The Boundary-Line Function of the Economic Loss Rule, 66 ash. & Lee L. Rev. 523, 546 (2009)(footnotes omitted) (quoting Stewart I. Edelstein, Beware the Economic Loss Rule, Trial, June 2006, at 42, 43 (2006))). “The economic loss rule is a doctrine that limits the recovery of purely economic damages in an action for negligence. Lan/STV v. Martin K. Eby Constr. Co., 435 S.W.3d 234, 235 (Tex. 2014) ("In actions for unintentional torts, the common law has long restricted recovery of purely economic damages unaccompanied by injury to the plaintiff or his property[.]"); see also Sharyland Water Supply Corp. v. City f Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407, 415 (Tex. 2011)("[P]arties may be barred from recovering in negligence or strict liability for purely economic losses."). Texas courts have generally applied the economic loss rule in cases involving defective products and in cases involving the failure to perform a contract.” Clark v. PFPP, Ltd. Partnership, 455 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2014, no pet.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)