LeBlanc v. Venture
Decision Date | 30 August 2012 |
Docket Number | SJC–11008. |
Citation | 463 Mass. 316,974 N.E.2d 34 |
Parties | Kelly A. LeBLANC, administratrix, v. LOGAN HILTON JOINT VENTURE & others. |
Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kenneth B. Walton (Patricia B. Gary with him), Boston, for Cosentini Associates–MA, LLP.
Matthew M. O'Leary (Jay S. Gregory with him), Boston, for Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc.
Curtis L.S. Carpenter, Boston, for Logan Hilton Joint Venture.
William P. Rose, New York, NY, for Broadway Electrical Co., Inc.
Present: IRELAND, C.J., SPINA, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ.
On August 4, 2004, Roger M. LeBlanc (LeBlanc), an electrician employed by the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), was killed by electrocution while attempting to repair an electrical transformer at the Logan Airport Hilton Hotel (hotel) in Boston. Kelly A. LeBlanc (plaintiff), as administratrix of her husband's estate, filed suit in the Superior Court against, among others, the owner of the hotel, the Logan Hilton Joint Venture (Hilton); the architect that designed the hotel, Cambridge Seven Associates, Inc. (Cambridge Seven); the consultant Cambridge Seven retained to provide electrical engineering services, Cosentini Associates–MA, LLP (Cosentini); and the construction subcontractor for electrical services, Broadway Electrical Co., Inc. (Broadway), alleging negligence, gross negligence, and breach of warranty. Hilton and Broadway filed cross claims against Cambridge Seven and Cosentini for indemnification and contribution. On October 12, 2007, a judge in the Superior Court granted the motion for summary judgment brought by Cambridge Seven and Cosentini as to the complaint and cross claims, and ordered the entry of separate and final judgment. The plaintiff, Hilton, and Broadway moved for reconsideration; their motions were denied on May 7, 2008. After separate and final judgment entered on August 21, 2008, Hilton and Broadway timely appealed from the grant of summary judgment as to their cross claims. The Appeals Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to Broadway's cross claim for indemnification, but reversed as to the remainder of the cross claims and remanded to the Superior Court. LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 78 Mass.App.Ct. 699, 713, 942 N.E.2d 970 (2011)( LeBlanc ). We granted Cambridge Seven's and Cosentini's applications for further appellate review.3 We affirm the judge's grant of summary judgment on behalf of Cambridge Seven and Cosentini as to the cross claims brought by Hilton and Broadway for indemnification but reverse as to the cross claims for contribution.
Background. In reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment, we conduct a de novo examination of the evidence in the summary judgment record, see Miller v. Cotter, 448 Mass. 671, 676, 863 N.E.2d 537 (2007), and view the evidence in the light most favorable to the parties opposing summary judgment, here, Hilton and Broadway. See Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 410 Mass. 117, 120, 571 N.E.2d 357 (1991). Therefore, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to Hilton and Broadway.
1. Facts. a. Agreement to provide architectural services. Hilton and Cambridge Seven executed an agreement in which Cambridge Seven was to provide architectural services to Hilton for construction of the hotel (agreement). Under the agreement, Cambridge Seven was to provide various professional services, including architecture, technical specification writing, coordination of consultants' services, and electrical engineering. It was to prepare “Design Development Documents” for the hotel consisting of “drawings, specifications and other documents which fix and describe the expected final size and character of [the] Project,” including “electrical systems materials.” Among the “Design Development Documents” it was to deliver were a “[p]reliminary layout of switchgear, transformer and generator placement,” and “[o]utline [s]pecifications.” Based on the “Design Development Documents,” it was to prepare final “Construction Documents,” including plans for the design of electrical systems and “[f]inal electrical specifications.”
Once the construction phase of the project began, Cambridge Seven was to “visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction to become familiar with the progress and quality of Work and to determine, in general, if Work is being performed in accordance with the Construction Documents.” The agreement specified that Cambridge Seven was not required “to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check quality or quantity of Work.” 4 Cambridge Seven was required to “[s]ubmit written reports to Hilton every two weeks recording [Cambridge Seven's] observations at the construction Site as to the progress and quality of the Work.” In addition, the agreement stated: “In particular, [Cambridge Seven] shall promptly inform Hilton in writing of any deficiencies in Work and/or deviations from the requirements of the Construction Contract which come to [Cambridge Seven's] attention.”
When the project was substantially completed, Cambridge Seven was to “prepare a punch list of all incomplete and/or unacceptable systems and/or construction items for all trades, which must be corrected prior to Final Completion.” It was then to “ascertain the satisfactory completion by [the general contractor] of all punch list items for purposes of Final Completion.”
Cambridge Seven was entitled to retain the professional consultants it deemed necessary to provide the services required under the agreement, but was responsible for their proper performance of services as if these services were performed by its own employees.
The agreement included the following provision, § 2.1.9, limiting Cambridge Seven's responsibilities:
b. The switchgear. The Appeals Court ably described the electrical transmission equipment known in the industry as the “switchgear” at the hotel, and how the absence of instruction regarding its operation led to LeBlanc's death:
LeBlanc, supra at 703–704, 942 N.E.2d 970.
c. Specifications for the warning signage. One specification for the switchgear required that it have a stenciled “mimic bus” diagram on the face of the cabinets that showed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S. Shore Hellenic Church, Inc. v. Artech Church Interiors, Inc.
..."two or more persons become jointly liable in tort for the same injury." Mass. Gen. L. ch. 231B, § 1 ; LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316, 974 N.E.2d 34, 42 (2012) ("'Without liability in tort there is no right of contribution"') (quoting Berube v. Northampton, 413 Mass. 6......
-
Yee v. Mass. State Police
...the State police's motion for summary judgment.Discussion. Our review on summary judgment is de novo. LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316, 318, 974 N.E.2d 34 (2012). In determining whether an employee's discrimination claim survives a motion for summary judgment, we apply t......
-
Woodward Sch. for Girls, Inc. v. City of Quincy
...operation of law rather than by contractual obligation. See, e.g., G.L. c. 203C, §§ 1 et seq. See also LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316, 328, 974 N.E.2d 34 (2012) (“Where a contractual relationship creates a duty of care to third parties, the duty rests in tort, not cont......
-
Carrozza v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
...standard of care" that "can be reasonably expected from similarly situated professionals." See LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316, 974 N.E.2d 34, 44 (2012) (quoting Klein v. Catalano, 386 Mass. 701, 437 N.E.2d 514, 525 (1982) ) (first citing Pongonis v. Saab, 396 Mass. 100......
-
The Importance Of Engaging Design Professional Experts Early, With A Focus On Massachusetts Law
.... . . Expert testimony is generally needed to establish this professional standard of care." LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 463 Mass. 316, 329 (2012). While contracts for architects, engineers, surveyors and other design professionals often expressly set forth their duties, those co......