ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT