The AIA Trust home

Endnotes

  1. As used herein the term "Design Professional" refers to architects, engineers. geologists. surveyors and other "professionals" who are involved in some phase of the project design/construction administration process.
  2. As used herein, the term "person" involves either an individual or some recognized business entity such as a corporation, limited liability company or partnership.
  3. Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 164, N.E. 545, 549 (N.Y. 1928).
  4. Benasra v. Mitchell Silverberg & Knupp, LLP, 123 Cai.App.4th 1179, 1187-1188, 20 Cai.Rptr.3d 621 (2004).
  5. Wolf v. Superior Court, 107 Cai.App.4th 25, 27, 130 Cai.Rptr.2d 860 (2003).
  6. In ReMarriage of Walker, 138 Cal App.4th 1408, 1418, 42 Cai.Rptr.3d 325 (2006).
  7. Chatard v. Oveross, 179 Cai.App.4th 1098, 1105, 101 Ca1Rptr.3d 883 (2009).
  8. Wolfv. Superior Court, 107 Cai.App.4th 25, 27, 130 Cai.Rptr.2d 860 (2003).
  9. Downey v. Humphreys, 102 Cai.App.2d 232, 332, 227 P.2d 484 (1951).
  10. Rickel v. Schwinn Bicycle Co.. 144 Cai.App.3d 648, 654, 192 Cai.Rptr. 732 (1983).
  11. Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 164, N.E. 545, 549 (N.Y. 1928).
  12. The published decision is one which carries with it precedential effect in a jurisdiction, but if a case is uunpublished," neither lawyers nor judges may be able to cite it as precedent in their legalpapers, whether in pleadings or motions.
  13. We include virtually all of the engineer fiduciary duty cases we located,while we have only selected what we consider the most illustrative of the architect/client ones.
  14. 127 Cai.App.2d 44, 273 P.2d 306 (1954).
  15. 732 N.W. 2d. 324 (Minn. App. 2007).
  16. 2007 WL 1536803 (Cal. App. 2007).
  17. 2006 WL 265301 (Conn. Super 2006).
  18. 2004 WL 3015325 (Ohio App. 2004).
  19. 2004 WL 2165906 (Conn. Super. 2004).
  20. 292 A.D. 2d 197, 738 N.Y.S. 2d (2002).
  21. 1999 WL 639942 (Conn. Super. 1999).
  22. 232 Neb. 885, 443 NW 2d 260 (1989).
  23. 538 N.E. 2d 299 (Ind. App. 1989).
  24. 308 N.W. 2d 575 (S.D. 1981).
  25. H 946 P.2d 589, 597 (Colo. App.1997)
  26. 2007 Mass. Super. LEXIS 332.
  27. 100 Wis.2d 747,303 N.W. 2d 885 (Wis. App. 1981).
  28. WL 2002 U.S. OIST. LEXIS 5497 (N.D. 2002).
  29. For tactical reasons, as discussed later herein, the plaintiffs lawyer will try to advance as many potentially viable theories as possible so that a recovery may be advanced on more than a single theory of liability; legally speaking, there may well be "strength in numbers" in such a trial strategy.
  30. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transportation, 36 Cal. 4th 643,654-655, 31 Cai.Rptr.3d 147, 115 P.3d 460 (2005).
  31. Cal. Ins. Code section 533 reads as follows: "An insurer is not liable for a loss caused by the willful act of the insured, but he is not exonerated by the negligence of the insured."
  32. J.C. Penney Casualty Ins. Co. v. M.K., 52 Cal. 3d 1009, 1021-1025, 278 Cal. Rptr. 64, 804 P.2d 689 (1991}.
  33. In California, for example, if the misconduct is found malicious, fraudulent or oppressive, punitive damages (in addition to compensatory damages) may lie for purposes of punishing the wrongdoer. Cal. Civ. Code, Section 3294, and Betts v. Allstate Ins. Co., 154 Cai.App.3d 688, 708, 201, Cai.Rptr. 528 (1984)
  34. Westrec Marina Management, Inc. v. Jardine Ins. Brokers Orange County, 85 Cai.App.4th 1042, 1050, 102 Cai.Rptr.2d 673 (2000).
  35. Vandenberg v. Superior Court, 21Cal.4th 815, 838-840, 88 Cai.Rptr.2d 366, 982 P.2d 299 {1999).
  36. This is the process known as "voir dire." Donovan v. Poway Unified School District, 167 Cai.App.4th 567, 622-624, 84 Cai.Rptr.3d 285 (2008).
  37. In most states all that is required to uphold a civil jury's verdict is "substantial evidence" of each element of proof. Foggy v. Ralph F. Clarke & Associates, Inc. 192 Cal. App.3d 1204, 1215, 238 Cai.Rptr.130 {1987). This is hardly a large burden for a plaintiff to satisfy in a jury trial, assuming the jury has been properly instructed.
  38. Crisci v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, 66 Cal.2d 425, 430, 58 Cai.Rptr.13, 426 P.2d 173 (1967) (discussing an insurer's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing].
  39. Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. 4th 35, 48-49, 65 Cal. Rptr.2d 366, 939 P.2d 766 (1997).
  40. See, Johansen v. California State Auto. Assn. Inter-Ins. Bureau, 15 Cal. 3d 9, 16, 123 Cai.Rptr.288, 538 P.2d 744 (1975)
  41. Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Jacobson, 25 Cal.41 489, 106, Cai.Rptr.2d 535, 22 P.3d 313 (2001).
  42. One could envision expanded case discovery where there are allegations of conflict of interest. or alleged nondisclosure. as the underpinning for the breach of fiduciary duty claim.