Historically, the damages available in actions against architects for malpractice differed depending on the theory of recovery. If the action was rooted in contract, damages were limited to the cost of correcting the defective condition; consequential damages, such as lost profits, might not be recoverable.1 If the action was rooted in tort, evidence of lost profits was allowable,2 provided the plaintiff suffered personal injury or property damage.3 Because of the different categories of damages recoverable under each of the two theories, plaintiffs were required to plead their claims carefully in order to avoid the risk that they would not be able to recover a particular type of damage suffered.
Courts have since moved away from such strict application of the theories underlying architectural malpractice claims and toward the view that, because malpractice is a hybrid claim rooted in both contract and tort, damages available under either theory should be available to the malpractice plaintiff.
Historical Treatment of Claims
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
