Limitation of liability provision enforceable

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-Temple-DavidOn March 2, 2011, the federal district court in Indianapolis issued a rather innocuous and unassuming opinion in SAMS Hotel Group, LLC v. Environs, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2011), No. 1:09-CV-00930-TWP-TAB. However, its ramifications may be far-reaching and are surely welcomed by design professionals working on projects in Indiana.

The court granted an architectural firm’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the owner’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that (1) the owner’s negligence claim is barred by the economic loss doctrine, based on the reasoning articulated by the Indiana Supreme Court in Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charles Clark & Linard, P.C., 929 N.E.2d 722 (Ind. 2010), and (2) the architectural firm’s liability is contractually limited to the lump-sum fee paid by the owner. It is the latter finding that is most significant, yet it should not be surprising in light of contract law in Indiana. While the court’s decision does not cite to significant case law on this issue, the court found the contractual language at issue to be unambiguous, stating that “[e]ven a person with limited acumen would interpret this contract to mean that Environs could owe SAMS no more than what it was paid if it did not deliver a sound design as promised.”

SAMS Hotel Group owned a Homewood Suites Hotel under construction in Fort Wayne which the Allen County building commissioner ordered to be demolished because of its structural instability. SAMS sued Environs Inc., the architectural firm hired to design the hotel and perform certain oversight functions during construction, as well as the steel fabricator and the engineering firm that provided engineering services relating to the steel framing. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of the steel fabricator and the engineering firm leaving Environs Inc. as the sole defendant.

The parties’ contract provided: “The Owner agrees that to the fullest extent permitted by law, Environs Architect/Planners Inc.[’s] total liability to the Owner shall not exceed the amount of the total lump sum fee due to negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or breach of warranty.” SAMS asserted that the provision was unenforceable because it did not unequivocally make clear that Environs’ liability was limited for its own wrongful acts. However, the court rejected SAMS’s argument, finding in part that the provision at issue was a limitation of liability provision, not an exculpatory clause. Moreover, the court found “the limiting language in the contract is unmistakably clear” and that “[t]his is not a situation where an unsuspecting or unknowing party is disadvantaged by a murky provision.”

Under Indiana law, absent an ambiguity, Indiana courts give the terms of a contract their plain and ordinary meaning. Indiana Dept. of Transp. v. Shelley & Sands, Inc., 756 N.E.2d 1063, 1069-1070 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Furthermore, a “contract is unconscionable if a great disparity in bargaining power exists between the parties which leads the weaker to sign a contract unwillingly or without being aware of its terms.” White River Conservancy Dist. v. Commonwealth Eng., 575 N.E.2d 1011, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). The court made it clear that in this situation, it was faced with neither ambiguous terms nor disparate bargaining power between the parties.

The court ultimately concluded that “[i]f SAMS wanted greater protection from a negligent design, it could have obtained such protection through different contractual terms or a performance bond.” The court appears to have implicitly rejected any invitation to rewrite the parties’ contract based upon the limitation of liability provision somehow violating public policy. From an outsider’s perspective, the court’s decision is one of the purest forms of applying the four corners’ doctrine, and it serves as a reminder to contracting parties that unambiguous contractual provisions – even if they later seem like a “bad deal” for one of the parties – can and will be enforced.•


 David A. Temple
  is a partner at Drewry Simmons Vornehm in Carmel, where he focuses on professional liability, construction, products liability and environmental insurance matters. He is on the board of directors of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and a member and former chair of the Construction Law Section. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.