Opinion ID: 1625348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Application of Stucco

Text: The trial court also refused to hold TSP partially liable for the additional expenses of applying stucco during the winter months. In reference to the winter heat and snow and muck removal, the court noted that the owner and the architect were the major causes of the delay which required the winter construction. TSP experienced internal personnel problems. TSP's project supervisor shut down further work on the project at one point. Vacations were taken at crucial times. TSP caused a delay in the structural steel erection, a major item. The trial court specifically found that TSP's failure to have its work done caused a delay. Thereafter, the project was in very serious trouble because the delay in erecting the steel and the rainy fall weather caused winter work resulting in winter heat, snow and muck removal, and the completion of the stucco exterior during the winter months.  (Emphasis added.) For the same reasons that the court held TSP and BDL equally responsible for the costs of winter heat and snow and muck removal, TSP must share some responsibility with BDL for the completion of the stucco exterior during the winter months. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion of law was error. In Kaufman v. Leard, 356 Mass. 163, 248 N.E.2d 480 (1969), where the construction costs greatly exceeded the contract budget, the Massachusetts Supreme Court found the architect partially liable. In doing so, the court affirmed findings that the architect was negligent in failing to prepare adequate plans and to submit written specifications to the general contractor. The court noted that the architect's plans and specifications should have been sufficiently explicit for the general contractor to give a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost. Id. 248 N.E.2d at 483. See generally Weill Const. Co., Inc. v. Thibodeaux, 491 So.2d 166 (La.Ct.App.1986) (architects are liable for damages incurred by the owner when their plans and specifications are faulty and defective as a result of their neglect in exercising care and skill). While it is true that the costs attributable to the Nash-Finch space, installation of 18-gauge metal wall studs, and the increase in the height of the Mall reflect costs of labor and materials which enhance[d] the Mall's value, it was error to find BDL solely liable. The trial court stated in its memorandum decision that a portion of the expenses are attributable to delays in plan preparation, planning deficiencies, and the sloppy project administration by the design professional, TSP. If TSP would have provided R & S with this information prior to the July 3 contract, R & S would have been able to more accurately bid the costs of constructing the Mall and BDL would have had the option of modifying the design of the Mall or not proceeding at all. See Kaufman, 248 N.E.2d 480. Even though these expenses increased the value of the Mall, on remand, BDL's ultimate liability for these expenses should be offset to some extent by TSP's liability for its negligence. Id. Therefore, the trial court's conclusion was not supported by the findings of fact. Knodel, 269 N.W.2d at 390. We find that the trial court failed to accurately apportion between BDL and TSP these increased costs incurred by R & S. We reverse and remand for a correct determination.