NorthRidge Case
Northridge Homes, Inc. v. John W. French & Associates, Inc., et al. Suffolk Superior Court C.A. No: 97-2281-H
Type of Action: Architectural Malpractice and Chapter 93A.
Damages Alleged: Inadequate attic ventilation throughout a twelve building housing cooperative leading to repeated extensive ice damming and roof leaks.
Verdict: $400,000
Date: May 23, 2000
Case Summary:
Plaintiff, a 98 unit housing cooperative, retained the defendant architectural firm to provide architectural services in connection with the renovation and rehabilitation of plaintiff’s buildings. One major purpose of this work was to improve attic ventilation. As part of these services the defendant architectural firm also monitored the work and reviewed Change Orders for compliance with the design intent. The architect assigned by the defendant firm to provide these services was also named as a defendant.
The project was mostly completed by 1993. In the winters of both 1994 and 1995 there was extensive ice damming and resulting roof leaks in plaintiff’s units. In each of these winters, the plaintiff requested the defendant visit its property to advise whether the ice damming and roof leaks were caused by a structural problem. In both instances, the architectural firm assigned the individual defendant to conduct such inspections, and in both years, this defendant advised the plaintiff that its ice damming and roof leaks were due to the severe winters. When the problem re-occurred in the winter of 1996, the plaintiff retained an independent structural engineering firm. Based upon that firm’s review, plaintiff pursued claims against the defendants.
At trial, the plaintiff presented expert testimony that the defendant architectural firm’s design, together with decisions made during the contract administration phase, resulted in attic ventilation which did not comply with the then applicable requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code. Both plaintiff’s expert and the defendant individual architect testified that failure to comply with the requirements of the Building Code constituted a breach of the required standard of care. Plaintiff’s expert testified that the initial design prepared by the defendant architectural firm was deficient in that it failed to account for “constructability” (the ability of contractors to construct what had been designed) and the need for additional ventilation due to heat sources; that the defendants’ negligent approval of a change order eliminating the addition of a vapor barrier, doubled the ventilation requirements while only saving the plaintiff approximately $1200 on a $1.2 million dollar project; and the addition of a perforated metal mesh to eaves vents, with the defendants’ approval, further severely restricted the ventilation. Plaintiff’s expert further testified that lack of adequate attic ventilation was a substantial contributing factor to the ice damming and resulting roof leaks as well and caused more subtle building damage through condensation and rot. Plaintiff’s expert also described the repairs necessary to provide adequate attic ventilation and testified that adequate ventilation could have been provided without significantly increasing the cost of the original project. Plaintiff offered into evidence bids for the necessary repairs.
Defendants’ arguments included that they were not negligent; that the proposed repairs would not significantly increase ventilation; that plaintiff was seeking a “betterment” (i.e. to be put in a better position than it would have been had the work been properly performed); that ventilation could still be significantly increased at minimal cost; and that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The statute of limitations question was central as defendants previously brought a Summary Judgment Motion alleging that the Owner/Architect Agreement barred claims brought more than three years after the date of the Certificate of Substantial Completion. The Court denied this motion, but, as plaintiff filed suit after this date, held that plaintiff had the burden to establish equitable estoppel as to the defendants’ conduct in advising them that the ice damming and roof leaks were due to severe winters. Accordingly, in addition to the standard elements of professional negligence, the jury was also given special questions on the elements of equitable estoppel.
A unique aspect of this trial was that the Court allowed the jurors to submit questions to witnesses. This procedure seemed to increase juror attentiveness to a dry subject matter.
After slightly more than an hour of deliberations, the jury answered all special questions in favor of the plaintiff and awarded $400,000 in damages, an amount within the range of estimates in evidence. After further argument and written submissions, the Court also found the defendant architectural firm had violated Chapter 93A (though this was not a willful and knowing violation) and thus plaintiff was entitled to apply for its attorney’s fees.