J. West Construction Co. v. Beeson, Lusk, Jones, Inc.

Richmond County Circuit Court

J. West Construction Co. v. Beeson, Lusk, Jones, Inc.

5 Va. Cir. 50, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 30

Richmond County Circuit Court·Decided April 16, 1982·No. Case No. LE-1095·Published

Opinion

By JUDGE WILLARD I. WALKER

After considering the pleadings, arguments and memoranda of this case, I hold that defendant’s demurrer be sustained with prejudice.

The plaintiff's motion for judgment fails to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. Assuming, as I must, that all allegations in plaintiff’s pleadings are true, they fail for the following reasons.

First, there is no duty owed by an architect to a subcontractor, unless a contractual duty exists; and there is no contractual duty alleged in this case. The architect's duty runs to the owner, not to the contractor or subcontractor.

Secondly, a general contractor is not considered a third-party beneficiary of an owner-architect contract, absent specific provisions providing otherwise. This same concept is applicable to a subcontractor who is one step further removed from the owner-architect contract, and therefore bars recovery.

For the above reasons, the demurrer is sustained with prejudice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE WILLARD I. WALKER

After considering the pleadings, arguments and memoranda of this case, I hold that defendant’s demurrer be sustained with prejudice.

The plaintiff's motion for judgment fails to state a cause of action on which relief may be granted. Assuming, as I must, that all allegations in plaintiff’s pleadings are true, they fail for the following reasons.

First, there is no duty owed by an architect to a subcontractor, unless a contractual duty exists; and there is no contractual duty alleged in this case. The architect's duty runs to the owner, not to the contractor or subcontractor.

Secondly, a general contractor is not considered a third-party beneficiary of an owner-architect contract, absent specific provisions providing otherwise. This same concept is applicable to a subcontractor who is one step further removed from the owner-architect contract, and therefore bars recovery.

For the above reasons, the demurrer is sustained with prejudice.

J. West Construction Co. v. Beeson, Lusk, Jones, Inc., 5 Va. Cir. 50, 1982 Va. Cir. LEXIS 30 (Va. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

5 Va. Cir. 50 (J. West Construction Co. v. Beeson, Lusk, Jones, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.