Pipe Welding Supply Co., Inc. v. Haskell, Conner & Frost, 61 N.Y.2d 886 (1984)
A significant discrepancy between an architect’s cost estimate and actual bids, without specific evidence of negligence in preparing the estimate, is insufficient to establish a breach of the standard of care for architects.
Summary
Pipe Welding Supply Co. sued Haskell, Conner & Frost, architects, alleging negligence in preparing budget estimates for a building, claiming the architects failed to use the skill and knowledge expected of proficient architects. The plaintiff’s case relied on the significant variance between the architects’ cost estimates and the actual bids received, as well as an expert’s opinion based solely on this discrepancy. The New York Court of Appeals held that this evidence was insufficient to prove negligence. The court emphasized that the unexplained discrepancy, by itself, did not prove negligence or permit an inference of it.
Facts
Pipe Welding Supply Co. hired Haskell, Conner & Frost as architects for a building project. The architects provided cost estimates. The bids received for the project significantly exceeded the architects’ estimates (33-45% higher). Pipe Welding Supply Co. alleged the architects were negligent in preparing these estimates.
Procedural History
Pipe Welding Supply Co. sued Haskell, Conner & Frost in a trial court. The trial court submitted the case to the jury, instructing them that a large discrepancy between the estimated and actual costs could indicate the architects did not properly perform their work. The jury found in favor of Pipe Welding Supply Co. The Appellate Division’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a substantial, unexplained discrepancy between an architect’s cost estimate and actual construction bids, without specific proof of negligence in preparing the estimate, is sufficient to establish a deviation from the required professional standard of care.
Holding
No, because the fact of an unexplained, substantial discrepancy between the architect’s projection of cost and the actual bids neither constitutes proof of negligence by the architects nor does it permit an inference of negligence.
Court’s Reasoning
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide specific evidence of negligence in how the architects prepared the cost estimates. The plaintiff’s evidence consisted primarily of the discrepancy between the estimates and the bids, coupled with an expert opinion solely based on that discrepancy. The court noted the expert admitted that