Court Opinion

ID: 9569929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:18:40.12348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:18.314252
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. In my opinion plaintiff subcontractors did not have a remedy against defendant architectural firm based 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. The major contractual issues between the parties were apparently resolved in the companion case. Remaining contractual issues, if any, which may have been presented initially in the instant matter appear to have been waived in this appeal by Metro and MBA.
I would hold that judgment was properly entered in favor of FSB because Metro and MBA did not state a tort claim against FSB; not because the statute of limitations had run on a tort action.
I am authorized to state that Justice HARGRAVE joins with me in the views expressed herein.