Carter & Burgess Inc. v. Sardari

In this interlocutory appeal, the architectural firm Carter & Burgess Inc. challenges the trial court's order denying its motion to dismiss. C&B contends that a certificate of merit was required by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §150.002, but plaintiff Yasameen Sardari failed to file a certificate of merit in support of her claims against C&B. Sardari contends that no certificate of merit was required because her tailored allegations of negligent project management relate to the actions of an unlicensed employee and therefore did not arise out of the provision of professional services. The use of an unlicensed employee in the course of providing professional services does not eliminate the certificate of merit requirement applicable when the plaintiff seeks to impose liability on a professional architecture or engineering firm. Because the action against C&B arose from its provision of professional services as an architectural firm, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss. The trial court's order is reversed and remanded with instructions for the trial court to dismiss Sardari's claims against C&B. Houston's 1st Court of Appeals, No. 01-11-00667-CV, 10-14-2011.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

OPINION

In this interlocutory appeal, the architectural firm Carter & Burgess, Inc. challenges the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss. C&B contends that a certificate of merit was required by Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 150.002, but plaintiff Yasameen Sardari failed to file a certificate of merit in support of her claims against C&B. Sardari contends that no certificate of merit was required because her tailored allegations of negligent project management relate to the actions of an unlicensed employee and therefore did not arise out of the ―provision of professional services.‖ Because we nevertheless conclude that the action against C&B arose from its provision of professional services as an architectural firm, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we reverse and remand this case with instructions for the trial court to dismiss Sardari’s claims against C&B.

Carter & Burgess Inc. v. Sardari

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to The Recorder