Bfgc Architects Planners v. forcum/mackey

14 Cal.Rptr.3d 721 (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 848 BFGC ARCHITECTS PLANNERS, INC., Cross-complainant and Appellant,

v.

FORCUM/MACKEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents.

No. G032543. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

June 21, 2004. Rehearing Denied July 20, 2004. Review Denied October 13, 2004. [722] Collins, Collins, Muir & Stewart, Christine E. Drage, Jacqueline C. Pons-Bunney and Douglas Fee for Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Lang, Richert & Patch, Val W. Saldana and Tracy E. Sagle Benneyan for Cross-defendant and Respondent Forcum/Mackey Construction, Inc.

Case, Ibrahim & Clauss, Brian S. Case, Costa Mesa, F. Albert Ibrahim, Mark R. Guevara and Andrew C. Carlton for Cross-defendant and Respondent S.C. Anderson, Inc.

OPINION

RYLAARSDAM, J.

Cross-complainant BFGC Architects Planners, Inc. (plaintiff) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of cross-defendants, Forcum/Mackey Construction Inc. (Forcum) and S.C. Anderson, Inc. (Anderson) (collectively defendants) after their demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiff contends the court erred by holding that its claims for implied indemnity required a predicate tort. We find the demurrers were correctly sustained without leave to amend and affirm.

FACTS

Porterville Unified School District (district) and plaintiff entered into a contract whereby plaintiff agreed to prepare architectural drawings for and supervise construction of a high school. District also entered into contracts with Forcum and Anderson to act as general contractors for the site phase and construction phase, respectively. In its complaint against plaintiff for breach of contract and professional negligence, district alleged that after construction was completed, Anderson submitted a claim to district for more than $11 million, alleging "delays and disruptions stemming from [plaintiff's] defective design. . . ." District paid Anderson just over $4 million to settle the action; it also spent approximately $717,500 in defense costs and more than $2.1 million in change orders, "many of which were caused by [plaintiff's] failure to perform its work expeditiously . . . [or] with professional skill and care. . . ."