Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)

Citation: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Parent Document: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2011-02-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489923/treetop-at-stratton-condo-assn-... ↗

Full Text

1,749 chars

In other circumstances, while the Vermont Supreme Court has recognized a design
professional’s duty to exercise reasonable care and responsibility in the design and construction
of a project, this duty was held to arise directly out of a contractual commitment. See Howard v.
Usiak, 172 Vt. 227, 235 (2001) (observing, in an action against architect for negligent design,
that the duty against which the “negligence standard is applied generally arises from the
contractual responsibilities the architect assumed”); see also EBWS, LLC v. Britley Corp., 2007
VT 37, ¶¶ 31-32 (no special duty of care created beyond the terms of construction contract for a
general contractor to create an exception to the economic-loss rule). Thus, whatever the
incidents of the “special relationship” required to support the “professional services” exception
to the economic loss doctrine may be, it is doubtful that they exist in the absence of privity of
contract. Id.
Indeed, this Court has previously rejected the professional services exception and has
applied the economic loss rule to claims by a condominium owner’s association against a design
professional because of the lack of any special relationship between the parties. Mount Snow v.
Grand Summit Resort Props., Inc., No.564-12-03 Wmcv (Vt. Super. Ct. Oct. 24, 2007) (Howard,
J.). There, the Court declined to abandon the privity requirement in professional negligence
cases, being unpersuaded that our Supreme Court would expand the possible scope of recovery
by favoring an exclusive focus on foreseeability as sufficient to support a tort duty. Id. at 8. The
circumstances presented by this case do not compel a different conclusion. 8
e. Unreasonably Dangerous Condition Exception

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text