Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Enco Associates, 43 N.Y.2d 389 (1977)

In cases involving claims against architects for defective design or supervision, the applicable statute of limitations is determined by the remedy sought (contract or tort damages) rather than the theory of liability (tort or contract), and the six-year contract statute of limitations applies to actions arising from the contractual relationship, but the available damages may be limited by the three-year tort statute of limitations if the action was not timely filed under tort law.

Summary

Sears sued Enco, architects, for negligently designing and supervising the construction of a defective ramp system. The ramps developed cracks due to improper design of snow-melting pipes. Sears alleged causes of action in negligence, breach of implied warranty, and breach of contract. The action was commenced more than three years after the ramp system’s completion. The court held that the six-year contract statute of limitations applied, but the available damages were limited to those recoverable under contract law because the action was filed outside the three-year statute of limitations for tort claims. The court further held that no claim existed for breach of implied warranty against an architect.

Facts

Sears, Roebuck contracted with Enco Associates in 1967 for the design and supervision of a ramp system construction for a parking deck. Enco designed and supervised the construction, completing it in spring 1968. In May 1970, cracks appeared in the ramps, allegedly due to improper design of the snow-melting pipes by Enco, specifically the failure to include expansion joints and the monolithic pouring of concrete.

Procedural History

Sears commenced an action against Enco in June 1972. Enco moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and that the implied warranty claim failed to state a cause of action. Special Term granted the motion, classifying the claims as professional malpractice and thus time-barred. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the claims against the architects were governed by the three-year statute of limitations for malpractice or the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract.

2. Whether an action lies against an architect for breach of implied warranty.

Holding

1. Yes, the six-year contract statute of limitations applies to claims arising from the contractual relationship between owner and architect, but because the action was filed more than three years after accrual, damages are limited to those recoverable for breach of contract.

2. No, no action lies for breach of implied warranty against an architect.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that the choice of the applicable statute of limitations depends on the remedy sought rather than the theory of liability. Relying on Matter of Paver & Wildfoerster (Catholic High School Assn.), the court reaffirmed that claims by owners against architects arising from contractual obligations are governed by the six-year contract statute of limitations. The court emphasized that all obligations of the architects arose from the contractual relationship; without the contract, no services would have been performed, and no claims would exist. “[A]ll liability alleged in this complaint had its genesis in the contractual relationship of the parties.” The court held that Sears could present evidence to establish either a breach of a specific contract term or a failure to use due professional care. However, because the action was commenced more than three years after the claim accrued, Sears was limited to recovering damages admissible under contract law, potentially excluding consequential damages like lost profits, which are typically recoverable in tort but not in contract. The court also addressed the choice of law issue, noting the contract specified Michigan law. However, it concluded that even if Michigan law applied, including its borrowing statute, the applicable statute of limitations would still be that of New York. Finally, the court agreed with the lower courts that no action lies for breach of implied warranty against an architect, aligning with both New York and Michigan law on this point.