Joseph Moore and Christina Moore v. Huneke Engineering, Inc. et al., Cause No. 1422-CC08898, Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis
PS Partners: Gary Snodgrass and Josh Breithaupt
We Represented: Huneke Engineering, Inc.
Type of Case: Catastrophic Personal Injury
Venue: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis
Result: Summary Judgment Entered in Favor of Defendant Huneke Engineering, Inc.
Factual Background: Plaintiff Joseph Moore asserted a personal injury claim arising from injuries he sustained at a construction site. On July 17, 2012, there was a five alarm fire at the Lindell apartment complex located in St. Louis, Missouri causing extensive fire damage to the premises. After the fire, various contractors were involved in the rehabilitation and remediation of the damaged apartment complex. Plaintiff Joseph Moore was an employee of the general contractor working at the job site.
On November 11, 2012, Plaintiff was in a stairwell on the fourth floor of the apartment complex when the stairwell collapsed and he sustained catastrophic personal injuries including broken facial bones, several broken ribs, a broken pelvis, and a severe brain injury which included a screw that had lodged itself more than an inch into the back of Plaintiff’s head. Plaintiff sued several entities involved with the work at the premises including Defendant Huneke Engineering, Inc.
Defendant Huneke had been retained by Plaintiff’s employer and entered into an oral agreement to examine and address the structural integrity of all of the apartments units to be refurbished in the apartment complex. Plaintiff argued that Defendant Huneke had a duty to examine the stairwell where the collapse occurred while conducting its structural examination of the immediately adjacent apartment units because it knew that various individuals at the construction site were routinely using the stairwell at issue.
Defendant Huneke filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Missouri case of Peeler v. Dewitt, 3 S.W. 3d 894 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) which looked at the question of whether an architect can be held responsible for failing to perform services that are outside the scope of his work. In Peeler, the Court held that an architect cannot be found responsible for failing to perform services that are clearly outside the scope of his work based on an oral agreement, and that a professional does not become responsible for the safety of the entire project when he does not undertake overall responsibilities for the project.
Outcome: After hearing oral argument on the Motion, the Court determined that there was simply no dispute that Defendant Huneke Engineering was not retained to inspect the stairwell involved in the collapse and was never asked to inspect that stairwell. The Court determined that a defendant cannot be negligent in failing to do more than its contract obligates it to do. Additionally, the Court cited Peeler v. DeWitt for the proposition that a professional does not become responsible for the safety of the entire project when he or she does not undertake professional responsibilities for the entire project. Therefore, the Court determined that Defendant had no duty to inspect or warn about the stairwell where the accident occurred and entered Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Huneke.
Last Settlement Demand from Plaintiff: $1,000,000.00
Last Settlement Offer from Defendant: $0
PS Partner: Don O’Keefe
We Represented: Winco
Type of Case: Product Liability Arbitration Claim
This arbitration claim involved a construction project at Auburn University, known as the South Donahue Residence Hall Project (“Project”). It was arbitrated over a week through the American Arbitration Association on May 16-18 and June 21-22, 2017. The prime contractor for the Project was W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company (“Yates”). Yates entered into a subcontract with G&S Glass and Supply, Inc. (“G&S”) for installation of windows for this Project. Winco was the window supplier and Pitzer Snodgrass’ client. The Project included 1,760 windows, 750 openings on about 6 floors.
Work on the dormitory commenced and was completed in 2013. Winco manufactured the windows, but that was the extent of its role. Winco was not involved in any respect with the trim construction or the window installation. Winco provided no on-site supervision or oversight of the installation, as it was not asked to provide such services in its proposal or as the Project was progressing. Winco timely supplied and delivered the windows that were accepted for this Project.
In December of 2013, G&S filed a Demand for Arbitration, asserting claims against Yates for extra work, delays, and acceleration damages arising out of water infiltrating various windows at the dormitory. These leaks delayed the work and required significant remediation. Yates countersued G&S, alleging defective and non-conforming work.
G&S amended its claims to include Winco. G&S alleged manufacturing defects in the sub-sill design and pre-fabricated joinery and that these claimed defects purportedly allowed water to permeate the joinery assembled by Winco. G&S did not have a contract with Winco. Yates did not have a contract with Winco either. Auburn University actually issued a purchase order to Winco for aluminum windows and trim pieces. Winco’s letter made its acceptance of Auburn’s purchase order subject to Winco’s terms and conditions and, more importantly, specified that “the purchase order is a contract between Winco and the University….” Auburn University ultimately paid for the windows.
Yates was identified only as the special agent for Auburn University under the Auburn purchase order. Yates, however, was not named in its individual capacity under the purchase order, so its rights and responsibilities were for the sole purpose of serving as the agent for Auburn University. Auburn University did not assert any claims against Winco nor did Yates characterize its role in arbitration as the agent for Auburn University. Winco argued there was no privity of contract with these parties or an agreement to arbitrate. Winco challenged its inclusion in the arbitration by a separate motion.
A special arbitrator found Winco to be subject to arbitration, believing it had an arbitration clause in its terms and conditions with Auburn. Thus, Winco was found to be a proper party to the AAA arbitration. Soon thereafter, Yates filed a crossclaim against Winco seeking separate damages for the alleged defects in the windows.
Yates and G&S then claimed the following damages as against Winco:
|$156,275.70||Extra work damages|
|$322,099.51||Attorney’s fees and costs|
|$310,343.50||Deductive change orders|
|$212,839.92||Attorney’s fees and costs|
Combined, Yates and G&S sought $1,178,083.48 in damages and each argued Winco was liable for their full damages. Winco sought solely attorney’s fees and costs of $125,383.57 following the hearing on the grounds that neither Yates nor G&S stated valid claims against Winco that would justify an award in this arbitration. Winco maintained from the beginning that it was the installation that led to over $1 million in damages, while Yates and G&S both contended that Winco’s design of its sub-sill was faulty and that Winco had provided defective windows.
Yates and G&S claimed that there were certain manufacturing irregularities in Winco’s windows as determined from some water testing conducted by Auburn. Nonetheless, minor manufacturing deficiencies were not quantified by G&S and/or Yates in terms of either their location or frequency. Winco contended that any joinery issues were compromised during the water testing itself. Winco also believed some of the issues could have arisen in terms of how the installer may have handled the Winco windows. Regardless, the installation extended well beyond any minor pre-fabricated joinery issues. Winco claimed that the majority of the problems were related to the installer’s failure to seal key window parts, including the stack joint, closure clips, sub-sill and the mullion joints.
The installer’s own evidence presented during the arbitration clearly established that the work lacked its usual “quality.” An employee of the installer who worked on the Project admitted that the acceleration of work by the prime contractor led to “poor” installation quality, as they were trying to complete 32 window openings a day. The job was noted to be behind schedule, and the installer blamed the prime contractor for poor project management and scheduling delays. The prime contractor blamed the installer for poor workmanship. Both claimed certain manufacturing defects against Winco.
A window testing firm who was brought in to test the windows and find the source of the leakage “concluded that water leakage through the windows was primarily caused by installation issues.” The prime contractor also characterized the windows as having a “systematic problem with field applied sealants” based on different tests performed. Another independent forensic tester claimed that the window leaks were due to improper sealing of the windows to the exterior and to the interior.
Winco’s Sub-Sill Design
Winco’s window installation instructions and relevant portions of the approved shop drawings were offered at the arbitration. The approved shop drawings clearly outlined the sill detail. The installer claimed the sill was not the appropriate height, leading to water intrusion. After the windows were approved, no changes were made with regard to the sub-sill detail, and no issues were raised concerning the sub-sill height to Winco. In fact, the installer had used the same sub-sill design on two prior jobs. Winco’s sub-sill design was and still is standard for Winco windows and has been used for years with proven success.
It was established during the arbitration that there was a mock-up window called for in the specifications which passed the appropriate water testing performed by a tester in 2012. Winco’s window design was clearly appropriate for the Project given the fact that if the windows were properly sealed, the windows would pass the water tests. This proved that the design works, as the sub-sill actually passed even greater test pressures than what was denoted in the test reports.
The Arbitrator’s Holding
The arbitrator held that while some of the windows experienced various problems, the source of the leaks was improper and poor installation of the windows. Winco consistently maintained the position that this was a case between the prime contractor and the installer. At no point before the arbitration hearing did Winco even assert a claim against the installer or prime contractor. Only after Winco was forced to arbitrate these claims over 5 days and expend significant sums did Winco ask for its fees and expenses.
The prime contractor’s claims against Winco were denied, as the prime contractor did not prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence any basis for any recovery against Winco. Similarly, the installer did not prevail on any claim against Winco. Walking into arbitration, Winco was facing an arbitration claim for over $1 million. Winco prevailed, however, and was able to recover its attorney’s fees and costs of $125,383.57 from the prime contractor and installer, to be split equally.