CM Report for Design Professionals (2004v1)
2004 Volume 1
CM Report for Design Professionals
Download this publication as a PDF
Articles in this report
Generally, the four-year statute of limitations in section 5/13-214(a) applies to claims involving improvements to real property. It takes precedence over the general two-year negligence statute in section 5/13-202. If a case arises out of construction related activities, the facts must be carefully scrutinized in order to determine whether the special four-year limitation period or the general two-year limitation period applies. Specifically, if a case involves an improvement to real property, a court must consider “whether the addition was meant to be permanent or temporary, whether it became an integral component of the overall system, whether the value of the property was increased, and whether the use of the property was enhanced.”
Illinois Appellate Court Relies On "Instructions To Bidders" Examination Of Site And Subsurface Exploration Data Provisions In Finding No Liability On Behalf Of A Design Professional
In a case defended by CM partner Jim Hoey and Paula Carstensen, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of a design professional against claims of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Bright Constr. v. Christopher Burke, No.2-03-0426.
Illinois Court Rules That Expert In Architecture Did Not Need Specialized Knowledge In Golf Course Design To Testify Regarding The Safety And Design Of Area Next To Golf Course
In Diane Sullivan-Coughlin v. Palos Country Club, Inc., the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial finding that the defendant, Palos Country Club, was negligent for an injury to the plaintiff when a golf ball allegedly struck the plaintiff in the head and caused her to fall out of a golf cart.
In A Dispute Between An Owner And Contractor, An Architect's Decision Will Be Final And Binding If A Party Fails To File A Timely Demand To Arbitrate That Decision
A recent Idaho Supreme Court decision, Martel v. Bulotti, 65 P.3d 192 (Idaho 2003), holds that a project architect’s decision in a dispute between an owner and contractor is not enforceable as an arbitration under the Uniform Arbitration Act, but the decision will be final and binding if the parties to the dispute do not take action to appeal that decision per the requirements of their contract.
Wisconsin Court Of Appeals Rules Architect Has No Professional Duty To Include In Its Design Temporary Bracings Needed During Truss Installation
In Baumeister v. Automated Products, Inc., 2003 WL 22725562 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003), construction workers injured when the roof trusses they were installing collapsed brought an action against an architect for negligently failing to design or approve safe temporary truss bracing for use during construction.
