Court Opinion

ID: 9712375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:52:33.430387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.712279
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Montgomery, J.:
In my opinion, the actionable negligence of the architect in this case is distinguishable from the actionable negligence of the contractor. The breach of the contractor is his failure to follow the plans and specifications approved by the owner, resulting in a latent defect undiscoverable by the owner until the damage occurred. However, if there is any actionable negligence of the architect pleaded and proved in this case, it would consist not in active participation in a deviation from the plans and specifications but in failure to observe or discover such deviation. I would not extend the rules suspending the statute of limitations in the cases cited by the majority opinion against the architect in this case even though they well might be applicable against the contractor. Since, as the majority opinion states, the architect is not an in*418surer, I would extend the statute of limitations against him only when fraud or concealment are pleaded and proved, which was not done in this case. See 22 P.L.E. Limitation of Actions §64, for the cases requiring proof of fraud and concealment. I would, therefore, reverse the judgment in appellee’s favor and order judgment entered in favor of the appellant, Joseph K. Seidle, Jr.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.