Moransais v. Heathman

• Decision Date: 01 July 1999
• Docket Number: No. 92,199.,92,199.
• Citation: 744 So. 2d 973
• Parties: Philippe H. MORANSAIS, Petitioner, v. Paul S. HEATHMAN, an individual, Bromwell & Carrier, Inc., a Florida corporation, Lennon D. Jordan, and J. Larry Sauls, Respondents.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

744 So.2d 973

Philippe H. MORANSAIS, Petitioner, v.Paul S. HEATHMAN, an individual, Bromwell &Carrier, Inc., a Florida corporation, Lennon D. Jordan, and J. Larry Sauls, Respondents.

No. 92,199.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 1, 1999.

Rehearing Denied November 4, 1999.

Alan S. Becker, Steven B. Lesser, and Gary C. Rosen of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for Petitioner.

C. Geoffrey Vining, Lakeland, Florida, for Respondents.

Lewis N. Brown of Gilbride, Heller & Brown, P.A., Miami, Florida, for the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Amicus Curiae.

ANSTEAD, J.

We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal certifying the following question to be of great public importance:

WHEN THE ALLEGED DAMAGES ARE PURELY ECONOMIC, CAN THE PURCHASER OF A RESIDENCE, WHO CONTRACTS WITH AN ENGINEERING CORPORATION FOR A PRE-PURCHASE INSPECTION, MAINTAIN A PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE LICENSED ENGINEER WHO PERFORMED THE INSPECTION AS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION?

Moransais v. Heathman,702 So.2d 601, 602(Fla. 2d DCA1997).We have jurisdiction.Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

For purposes of analysis, we rephrase the certified question into two questions:

(1)WHERE A PURCHASER OF A HOME CONTRACTS WITH AN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, DOES THE PURCHASER HAVE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE OF THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION WHO PERFORMED THE ENGINEERING SERVICES?

(2) DOES THE ECONOMIC LOSS RULE BAR A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL ENGINEER WHO PERFORMED THE INSPECTION OF THE RESIDENCE WHERE NO PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE RESULTED?

As rephrased, we answer the first question in the affirmative and the second question in the negative.In doing so, we quash the decision below.

PROCEEDINGS TO DATE¹

In June 1993, petitionerPhilippe Moransais contracted to purchase a home in Lakeland, Florida, from Paul S. Heathman.Moransais also contracted with Bromwell & Carrier, Inc.(BCI), a professional engineering corporation, to perform a detailed inspection of the home and to advise him of the condition of the home.The contract was signed for the corporation by one of the respondents, Lennon D. Jordan, as chief of the civil engineering division.Although the contract was signed by Jordan, it did not name as partiesthe respondents, Jordan and Larry Sauls, who actually performed the inspection in June of 1993.Moransais alleges that he relied on the engineers' inspection and advice to purchase the home and that after the purchase he discovered defects in the home that should have been, but were not, discovered in the engineering inspection, and that such defects rendered the home uninhabitable.

Moransais filed an action against BCI for breach of contract and against Jordan and Sauls for professional negligence as engineers licensed pursuant to chapter 471, Florida Statutes(1993).²The complaint alleged no bodily injury or property damage other than the undisclosed and undetected defects in the home.On the motion of Jordan and Sauls, the trial court dismissed the tort actions against the two engineers with prejudice.The trial court relied on Sandarac Ass'n, Inc. v. W.R. Frizzell Architects, Inc.,609 So.2d 1349(Fla. 2d DCA1992), which held that the economic loss rule barred a tort action against an architect by a condominium association where the damages alleged were purely economic and the plaintiff had no direct relationship with the architects.However, in its order the trial court questioned the wisdom of Sandarac and whether the provisions of chapter 471 should require a different result.The trial court also indicated that it would have preferred to follow the Fifth District's holding in Southland Construction, Inc. v. Richeson Corp.,642 So.2d 5(Fla. 5th DCA1994), that section 471.023, Florida Statutes(1993), creates a private cause of action for negligence against an individual professional engineer and that such a claim is not barred by the economic loss rule.

On appeal, the Second District affirmed the dismissal under the rationale of its earlier holding in Sandarac.The court held that Moransais had no cause of action against the individual engineers who actually provided the professional engineering services to him.The court explained its reasoning:

To allow a negligence claim against the individual engineers who performed the contract work and with whom Moransais has no traditional professional/client relationship runs afoul of the economic loss rule by allowing Moransais to pursue in tort what amounts to a breach of contract claim and, thereby, expand his remedy for breach of contract beyond that which he agreed to.

We recognize that licensed engineers are not automatically shielded from liability for professional malpractice by virtue of practicing through a corporation or partnership.However, on the facts of the case before us, we do not read chapter 471 to create a separate cause of action against the individual engineers with whom Moransais had no contract and no traditional professional/client relationship.Such a reading would create a duty in negligence that would, in turn, provide a remedy for which no consideration was given.

Moransais,702 So.2d at 603.However, in light of the Fifth District's contrary holding in Southland Construction and "the continuing uncertainty surrounding the economic loss rule,"the court below certified the above question as one of great public importance.Moransais,702 So.2d at 602.

Liability of Professionals

Under Florida's common law a person who is injured by another's negligence may maintain an action against the other person based on that other person's violation of a duty of due care to the injured person.³Further, where the negligent party is a professional, the law imposes a duty to perform the requested services in accordance with the standard of care used by similar professionals in the community under similar circumstances.⁴SeeLochrane Engineering, Inc. v. Willingham Realgrowth Inv. Fund, Ltd.,552 So.2d 228, 232(Fla. 5th DCA1989);see alsoFain, supra note 4, at 35("Generally, individuals `performing architectural and engineering services are performing professional services, and the law imposes upon such persons the duty to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care, as determined by the degree of skill and care ordinarily employed by their respective professions under similar conditions and like surrounding circumstances.'").

The court in Lochrane Engineering also explained the difference between a general contractual duty, such as that imposed under an ordinary contract for goods or services, and the distinct duty imposed upon a professional:

The duty of a professional who renders services, such as a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, is different from the duty of one who renders manual services or delivers a product.The contractual duty of one who delivers a product or manual services, is to conform to the quality or quantity specified in the express contract, if any, or in the absence of such specification, or when the duty and level of performance is implied by law, to deliver a product reasonably suited for the purposes for which the product was intended ... or to deliver services performed in a good and workmanlike manner.However, the duty imposed by law upon professionals rendering professional services is to perform such services in accordance with the standard of care used by similar professionals in the community under similar circumstances.

552 So.2d at 232.That Florida recognizes an action for professional malpractice is also evidenced by the statutory scheme for limitations of actions.Section 95.11, Florida Statutes(1997), reads in pertinent part:

Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:

. . . .

(4) WITHIN TWO YEARS.—

(a) An action for professional malpractice, other than medical malpractice, whether founded on contract or tort....However, the limitation of actions herein for professional malpractice shall be limited to persons in privity with the professional.

§ 95.11(4)(a), Fla. Stat.(1997).A profession, within the meaning of section 95.11, is "any vocation requiring at a minimum a four-year college degree before licensing is possible in Florida."SeeGarden v. Frier,602 So.2d 1273, 1275(Fla.1992).Under this definition, an engineer is considered a professional, seeid. at 1276 n. 5 and, accordingly, has been held liable as such for failure to exercise due care in rendering professional services.SeeLuciani v. High,372 So.2d 530(Fla. 4th DCA1979)(involving suit against engineer based on negligently performed tests resulting in economic loss to plaintiff's property);Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Assocs., Inc.,168 So.2d 333(Fla. 2d DCA1964)(involving suit against design engineer based on alleged negligent design and preparation of wooden trusses);cf.Ahimsa Technic, Inc. v. Lighthouse Shores Town Homes Dev. Co.,543 So.2d 422(Fla. 5th DCA1989)(reversing judgment for breach of contract against engineer where engineer performed services within standard of care required of professional engineers).⁵

The question remains, however, under the Second District's analysis, as to whether Florida recognizes a cause of action based on professional negligence against an individual professional who did not personally contract with the aggrieved party, but who is an employee of the professional services corporation that did contract with the aggrieved party.In other words, is the employee-professional who actually renders the professional services personally liable for the negligent performance of the services?The Second District held that there was no obligation or duty owed by the individual professional to the company's client for the client's economic damages.We disagree.

In this regard, we find our decision in In...