MG+M The Law Firm is pleased to present the next installment of our Design Professionals Roundtable series on Thursday, June 11: an interactive session exploring one of the most pivotal stages of litigation—arguing motions.
This program will be structured as a live, mock motions hearing, offering a practical look at how key arguments are developed and presented in real time. MG+M Partner David Hatem will serve as the judge, with MG+M attorneys presenting three distinct motions commonly encountered in design professional litigation.
The session will feature:
- Summary Judgment: Resolving Claims as a Matter of Law–Jennifer Whelan, Partner, and Alex Teschemacher, Associate
- Two companies entered into contracts with a town regarding the construction of a water treatment plant. After a flood at the water treatment plant, the town’s insurer paid out damages and sought to recover those damages from the contractors in a subrogation lawsuit. The contracts between the parties contained subrogation waivers and each defendant filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the insurer’s claims were barred by those subrogation waivers.
- Expert Admissibility (Daubert): Challenging Reliability and Scope of Testimony–Joseph Bussiere, Partner, and John Hugo, Partner
- An architect was hired to prepare designs for a commercial building. The general contractor has sued the architect, alleging that it made negligent misrepresentations by the owner for breach of its standard of care. The general contractor has designated the owners of the company as experts who intend to opine on whether the architect design plans contained negligent misrepresentations and an architect whose disclosure is inadequate. The defendant architect has filed a Daubert challenge to the experts for both the general contractor and the architect. The basis for the motion against the general contractor’s expert is that they are not qualified to offer an expert opinion. The basis for the motion against the town’s architect is that his opinions are conclusory and lack foundation.
- Statute of Repose & Indemnity: Timing Defenses and Contractual Risk Transfer–Michael Schaefer, Partner and Robert Cavanagh, Associate
- Designer enters into a contract with the property owner, which contains a standard form indemnity provision obligating the architect to “indemnify and hold harmless” the property owner for “all losses to the extent caused by negligent acts, errors, or omissions of the designer” … “in connection with the performance of the services under” the contract. Six and a half years after the certificate of occupancy is issued, and five and a half years after the certificate of substantial completion is issued, the property owner brings a claim for negligence and breach of the indemnity provision. Designer brings a motion for summary judgment on both counts. The issues will be whether the statute of repose bars the two claims.
Each motion will be introduced with a brief factual scenario and clearly framed issue, allowing participants to follow the arguments and reasoning as they unfold. Throughout the program, attendees will gain insight into effective advocacy strategies, common pitfalls, and how courts evaluate these issues in the context of claims against design professionals.
MG+M’s Design Professionals team closely monitors the legal developments shaping claims against architects and engineers nationwide and advises clients on practical, defensible strategies to manage risk and exposure throughout the lifecycle of a project. We hope you will join us for this timely and practical discussion.
Continuing Education (CE) credits will be available for this roundtable. Please provide your AIA member number in the registration form. If not provided, we cannot issue your credits, and it will be your responsibility to secure them independently.
