Better Get an Expert: The Role of an Expert in Claims Against Design Professionals
By Sarah A. Johnson, Esq.
Litigation against design professionals has often been characterized as a battle of the experts. Indeed, expert testimony is deemed so essential to cases against design professionals that some jurisdictions require the claimant/plaintiff to obtain either a certification of merit from an expert or a certification from the plaintiff’s attorney, affirming that they have consulted an expert and believe there is support for the allegations that the design professional has breached the standard of care.1
Architects and engineers do not have a duty to be perfect in their work. Rather, they must exercise the skill and judgment which may be reasonably expected from similarly situated professionals.2 Expert testimony is generally required to show an architect or engineer breached a standard of care unless the issue is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact, whether it be a judge or jury.3 Expert testimony is generally required to establish both “(1) the standard of care expected of the professional; and (2) the professional’s deviation from the standard.”4 Moreover, expert testimony may also be necessary to establish that the professional’s deviation was the cause of any damage.5
In RTI, LLC v. Pro Eng’g, Inc., the Supreme Court of South Dakota found that expert testimony was necessary to establish both breach and causation for claims against an engineer in relation to the alleged deficient HVAC design of a research facility.6 Moreover, the court found that an individual with no engineering or HVAC experience did not qualify as an expert to testify in support of the engineer’s breach of the standard of care with respect to the HVAC system.7
In Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chicago Shakespeare Theater, the Appellate Court of Illinois found that expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and breach of the same for claims against an architect in relation to the specification of limited-use elevators that proved incapable of meeting the theater’s performance requirements.8 Moreover, the court found that despite the purported expert’s wealth of experience working with elevators and as a consultant to architects in relation to elevators, the failure of the expert to link his conclusions to a recognized standard of care was fatal to the claims against the architect.9
However, expert testimony may not be required where the professional’s conduct is so grossly negligent that a layman can readily evaluate it without the need for expert testimony.10 In LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the architect’s negligence was so obvious as not to require expert testimony where the architect knew about certain deficiencies and failed to notify the owner of the same, despite a contractual duty to do so, resulting in the death of an electrician from an unsafe condition.11 The case involved a claim for negligence by the estate of the deceased electrician against the owner of the hotel where he was killed by electrocution while attempting to repair an electrical transformer.12 The estate also filed suit against the architect who designed the hotel and other consultants and contractors involved with the construction of the hotel.13 The owner and another consultant also filed crossclaims against the architect for indemnification and contribution.14
The contract between the owner and the architect required the architect to perform construction observation services and to promptly report any deficiencies in writing.15 The court found the architect’s breach of contract by failure to report that: (1) it never received the shop drawings for certain warning signage that was to be installed on the switchgear, and (2) the warning signage had not been installed on the switchgear despite being notified of the omissions, which did not require expert testimony.16 The court found that these deficiencies presented such an obvious risk to the safety of any person who would operate the switchgear that the evidence was sufficient, without an expert opinion, to permit a finding of negligence.17
Additionally, the law typically recognizes that not all services provided by a professional are professional services, as they include other services necessary to the professional’s business, such as billing and other administrative services.18 However, in Value Plus Flooring, LLC v. Don O’Johnson, LLC, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin rejected the owner’s attempt to transform a claim for professional negligence into a claim for breach of contract by not providing certain services after a motion for summary judgment was brought.19 The case involved a claim by the tile installer for foreclosure of lien to recover for unpaid labor and materials in connection with the construction of an auto dealership, and a third-party claim by the owner of the auto dealership against the architect for its construction, alleging breach of contract and negligence leading to the installation of a defective floor.20
The architect moved for summary judgment because the owner failed to provide any expert evidence to rebut the opinion of the architect’s expert that the architect met the applicable standard of care.21 In response to the architect’s motion, the owner argued the architect’s breach was related to its services or contractual duties in relation to addressing lien and warranty issues, reviewing and approving payment applications, reviewing change orders, and advising the owner whether the alternative tile proposed was appropriate, which were not architectural in nature.22 The trial court granted the architect’s motion, finding the owner was required to present expert testimony.23 The appellate court upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, noting there were no allegations in the third-party complaint relating to change orders or liens, but rather the third-party complaint alleged that the architect’s breaches in the performance of its architectural and engineering services led to the installation of defective flooring.24 The court concluded that in order to establish the cause of action alleged in the third-party complaint, the owner needed to provide expert testimony.25
As you can see, expert testimony can be crucial to defending a design professional’s case. If the other side fails to obtain an expert or obtains a less credible expert, it will often result in a resolution favorable to the design professional. Accordingly, engineers should take care in obtaining an experienced and credible expert. It is often worth obtaining such an expert early in the life of any claim, arbitration, or litigation, as the expert can assist in developing the defense theories and obtaining the best evidence in support of the engineer’s defense.
1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 150.002; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 411.35.
2 LeBlanc v. Logan Hilton Joint Venture, 974 N.E.2d 34, 44 (Mass. 2012).
3 RTI, LLC v. Pro Eng’g, Inc., 2025 SD 64, ¶ 41; Value Plus Flooring, LLC v. Don O’ Johnson, LLC, No. 2024AP213, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 535, *8 (June 24, 2025).
4 Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture LLP v. Chi. Shakespeare Theater, 263 N.E.3d 637, 642 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
5 RTI., 2025 SD 64, ¶ 41; Value Plus, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 535 at *15.
6 RTI, 2025 SD 64, ¶¶ 40, 52-55.
7 Id. at ¶¶ 68-69.
8 Adrian Smith, 263 N.E.3d at 642-43.
9 Id. at 645-46.
10 Adrian Smith, 263 N.E.3d at 642; LeBlanc, 974 N.E.2d at 44.
11 LeBlanc, 974 N.E.2d at 317, 331.
12 Id. at 317.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 318.
16 Id. at 328-29, n. 11, 331.
17 Id. at 331.
18 Value Plus Flooring, 2025 Wisc. App. LEXIS 535 at *12.
19 Id. at *9-11, 15-16
20 Id. at *3-4.
21 Id. at *4.
22 Id. at *5-6.
23 Id. at *7.
24 Id. at *10-11, 16.
25 Id. at *15-16.
