Opinion ID: 1115297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Summary Judgment for Rundquist & Hard, P.C., and Chris Hard

Text: Century's claim against Rundquist & Hard and Chris Hard is based on negligence and malpractice. Century argues that Hard was responsible for overseeing the work and supervising construction and was responsible for providing arbitration concerning the quality of the concrete and that Hard breached these duties to Century. The trial court granted summary judgment to Rundquist & Hard and Chris Hard on the basis that they owed no contractual duty to Century on which to base Century's claim. The duty of care architects owe to contractors in the absence of contract is discussed in Annotation, Tort Liability of Project Architect for Economic Damages Suffered by Contractor, 65 A.L.R. 3rd 249, § 2(a) (1975). The annotation notes that a majority of jurisdictions now recognize a tort duty of care in the absence of contractual privity. However, we do not need to reach this issue, because we hold that the architects in this case did not fail to use reasonable care in obtaining or relaying information for the school district. Century fails to show that Chris Hard and Rundquist & Hard, P.C., acted negligently by virtue of Hard's statements to the board. Although he informed the board of the erratic breaks, Hard also told the board that in his opinion there was no major problem with Century's continuing to pour concrete. Once the board voted to suspend pouring by Century, Chris Hard acted only as a messenger for Lower's proposals to the board but there is no evidence that he himself recommended that the board change subcontractors. No evidence exists that Hard failed to use reasonable care in obtaining or relaying the information to the school district. Century further argues that Hard and his firm breached a duty to arbitrate the dispute over the quality of the concrete. The trial court found that there was no arbitration clause of record except for the one contained in Rundquist & Hard's contract with CCSD. That clause contains the following provision: No arbitration, arising out of or relating to this Agreement, shall include, by consolidation, joinder or in any other manner, any additional person not a party to this agreement except by written consent   . Century was not a party to the agreement and did not obtain the parties' consent. Thus, the arbitration clause did not impose a duty upon Hard and his firm to arbitrate Century's concern over concrete testing. Century argues that the ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 1983 and the ASTM Standards C94 were made part of the project specifications. Century claims that the ACI Manual provision requires the architect to ensure that qualified and conscientious inspectors are on the job. The ASTM standard, it says, requires the architect to arbitrate disputes in case there is a dispute concerning the quality of ready-mix delivered to the job site. However, neither the Manual section nor the applicable standard is included in the record on appeal before this court. This means we have nothing before us to consider regarding these claims. This court will not consider factual recitations in briefs unless supported in the record. Hayes v. American National Bank of Powell, 784 P.2d 599, 601 (Wyo. 1989). We hold that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on Century's claims against Rundquist & Hard, P.C. and Chris Hard.