Case Name: SPANCRETE, INC., Appellant, v. RONALD E. FRAZIER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1994-01-18
Citations: 630 So. 2d 1197
Docket Number: No. 92-1470
Parties: SPANCRETE, INC., Appellant, v. RONALD E. FRAZIER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Appellee.
Judges: Before BASKIN, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 630
Pages: 1197–1199

Head Matter:
SPANCRETE, INC., Appellant, v. RONALD E. FRAZIER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., Appellee.
No. 92-1470.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 18, 1994.
Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot, Steven E. Stark and Christopher L. Kurzner, Miami, for appellant.
George, Hartz, Lundeen, Flagg & Fulmer and Esther E. Galicia, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.
Before BASKIN, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.

Opinion:
COPE, Judge.
Spancrete, Inc., appeals the dismissal with prejudice of its fourth amended complaint against the appellee architects, Ronald E. Frazier & Associates, P.A. We affirm.
Spancrete was a subcontractor on a construction project for Miami Dade Community College. Frazier was consultant architect. Spancrete brought suit against Frazier, alleging that Frazier was a supervising architect and that Spancrete had been injured by Frazier's alleged negligent supervision.
During the pendency of this appeal, the Florida Supreme Court decided Casa Clara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla.1993). There the court said, "We . limit A.R. Moyer, Inc. v. Graham, 285 So.2d 397 (Fla.1973), strictly to its facts." Id. at 1248 n. 9 (citing AFM Corp. v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 515 So.2d 180 (Fla.1987); Sandarac Ass'n, Inc. v. W.R. Frizzell Architects, Inc., 609 So.2d 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 626 So.2d 207 (Fla.1993); E.C. Goldman, Inc. v. A/R/C Associates, Inc., 543 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 551 So.2d 461 (Fla.1989)). A.R. Moyer is the leading case governing the liability of a supervising architect.
Assuming arguendo that Frazier is a supervising architect within the meaning of A.R. Moyer Spancrete has no cause of action. A.R. Moyer recognizes a duty of care owed by a supervising architect to a general contractor. 285 So.2d at 398, 402. Span-crete in this case is a subcontractor. Because A.R. Moyer has been confined strictly to its facts, the duty of care there recognized does not extend to a subcontractor. See McElvy, Jennewein, Stefany, Howard, Inc. v. Arlington Elec., Inc., 582 So.2d 47,49 (Fla. 2d DCA), cause dismissed, 587 So.2d 1327 (Fla.1991).
We find no merit to Spancrete's alternative argument under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 552 (1977).
We need not reach Frazier's alternative arguments for affirmance.
Affirmed.
BASKIN, J., concurs.
A.i?. Moyer emphasized the fact that the supervising architect had the power to stop work. 285 So.2d at 400-02. The present contract is American Institute of Architects Document A201, "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction," 1976 edition. Under that contract, the architect does not have the right to stop work; that power is reserved to the owner. 1 National Institute of Construction Law, Inc., Construction & Design Law % 4.6c.2d (1991). Although the architect has the power to reject work and has other contract administration powers, the architect does not have the right to control or supervise the contractor and subcontractors. See generally id. § 4.6c.2c-4.6c.2d. Given that A.R. Moyer is to be confined strictly to its facts, it would appear that Frazier does not qualify as a supervising architect within the meaning of A.R. Moyer.