Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and Remedies Code places certain procedural requirements on claims against licensed or registered architects, engineers, land surveyors, and landscape architects. See id. §§ 150.001-008 (West 2011). Cases governed by this chapter have involved negligence claims against non-manufacturers based on the design of improvements to real property. See, e.g., Sharp Eng’g. v. Luis, 321 S.W.3d 748, 752 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (concluding section 150.002 was not satisfied with respect to carpenter’s claim against engineers for negligent design of roof that carpenter fell through while performing framing work); Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP, No. 03-10-00805-CV, 2011 WL 1562891, at *5 (Tex.App.-Austin Apr. 20, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Occidental relies on New Texas Auto Auction 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an architect whose negligent design and supervision of construction render a building unfit for use may be liable in tort to a commercial tenant who suffers economic loss as a result (B) holding former plant owner liable for its negligent design of conveyor belt (C) holding that section 150002 was satisfied with respect to hotel owners claims against former owners architect for negligent design of foundation and drainage (D) holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed (E) holding former plant owner liable for negligent design of conveyor belt
Output (English): holding with respect to class iii device not subject to pma process that negligent marketing and inadequate warning claims were preempted but defective design claim was not preempted because no fda design requirement existed