Beachwalk Villas Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Martin

• Decision Date: 31 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. 23432,23432
• Citation: 305 S.C. 144,406 S.E.2d 372
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: BEACHWALK VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and Beachwalk Villas Horizontal Property Regime, Appellants, v. Richard E. MARTIN, AIA and Associates, Respondent. . Heard

Page 372

406 S.E.2d 372

305 S.C. 144

BEACHWALK VILLAS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., and Beachwalk Villas Horizontal Property Regime, Appellants, v. Richard E. MARTIN, AIA and Associates, Respondent.

No. 23432.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard May 31, 1990.

Decided July 8, 1991.

George E. Mullen, Hilton Head Island, for appellants.

J.W. Cabaniss of Grimball & Cabaniss, Charleston, for respondent.

FINNEY, Justice:

Appellants Beachwalk Villas Condominium Association (Association) and Beachwalk Villas Horizontal Property Regime (Regime) appeal the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the respondent, architect Richard Martin, AIA and Associates (Martin). We reverse and remand.

During 1980 and 1981, Justice Builders, Inc., (Justice) developed, constructed and marketed Beachwalk Villas, a luxury condominium project. Justice awarded Martin the contract for land planning and architectural design. Justice subsequently filed for bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The Association is a nonprofit corporation chartered for the purpose of administering Beachwalk Villas common property. The Regime is responsible for administering, maintaining and repairing the property.

After completion of the condominium, appellants allege they discovered structural deficiencies which they estimate will cost $2,000,000 to repair. Appellants brought suit against Martin asserting two causes of action; first, negligence in failing to properly design the project and specify appropriate materials and procedures to be utilized in the construction process, failing to properly supervise and inspect the work, and second, for breach of an implied warranty that the plans and specifications were suitable and fit for use in construction of buildings designed for use as condominiums.

Martin moved for summary judgment, and the trial judge granted his motion. Thereafter, the trial court agreed to reconsider its order. Upon reconsideration, the trial judge issued an order affirming his initial grant of summary judgment.

The question raised by this appeal is whether condominium owners may sue an architect for (1) negligence in the design, preparation of plans, specifications, and supervision of construction of the condominium complex; and (2) the breach of implied warranty where no contractual privity exists between the architect and the condominium owners.

The trial court held that the negligence or architect's malpractice action was barred by the "economic loss rule" ¹ set forth in Carolina Winds Owners' Association, Inc. v. Joe Harden Builder, Inc., 297 S.C. 74, 374 S.E.2d 897 (Ct.App.1988), overruled by Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. Co., 299 S.C. 335, 384 S.E.2d 730 (1989). The trial court also held that the relationship of architect and owner does not give rise to an implied warranty. We disagree with both holdings.

Forty years ago, in a suit by an owner/contractor against an architect for negligently furnishing defective construction plans, this Court held:

[I]f a party furnishes plans and specifications for a contractor to follow in a construction job, he thereby impliedly warrants their sufficiency for the purpose in view. Hill v. Polar Pantries, 219 S.C. 263, 271, 64 S.E.2d 885, 888 (1951).

Thus, did this Court recognize the architect's liability to an owner and contractor based on an implied warranty of workmanship. The architect's liability to owner/developer for negligent design...