Court Opinion

ID: 9852975
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:40:29.253414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:38.845430
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I do not agree with its threshold position that contractor has an action in tort against the architectural firm and Thomas.
Addressing similar issues in MBA Commercial Const. v. Roy J. Hannaford, 818 P.2d 469 (Okl.1991), my dissenting opinion, Id. at 475, expressed my view that those “plaintiff subcontractors did not have a remedy against defendant architectural firm *531based on the tort theory of ‘negligent design’ as a matter of law. Whatever recovery they were able to pursue for claims stemming from the delay of their contractual performance was limited to contract law.”
Although it is admittedly a minority view on this Court, it is nevertheless my opinion that while an architect’s defective plans may support a cause of action in tort where they result in personal injuries or property damage, where those plans cause construction delays or increased costs to fellow contracting parties participating in budding the project, they will give rise only to an action based on contract principles.
I am authorized to state that Justice OPA-LA joins in part in the views expressed herein.