A recent decision by the South Dakota Supreme Court highlights a lesson that construction litigators and project participants know well: when claims involve highly technical design and construction issues, expert testimony is often indispensable.
In RTI International Metals, Inc. v. Pro Engineering, Inc., the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of an architect, an engineering firm, and a ceiling installer because the project owner failed to produce qualified expert testimony necessary to establish its claims.
The Project and the Alleged Defects
RTI hired an architect, an engineer, and various contractors to design and construct a clinical research facility intended for animal health research trials. Following completion of the project, RTI encountered numerous operational problems and ultimately filed suit against several project participants, alleging negligence, breach of contract, and breach of implied warranty.
The facility was designed with sophisticated airflow and pressurization requirements. According to RTI, significant problems emerged shortly after occupancy.
One issue involved room pressurization. RTI claimed it discovered that adjusting air pressure in individual rooms required rebalancing the entire HVAC system, a process that allegedly took two to three days each time changes were made. To address the problem, RTI installed pressurization monitors and sensors that had not originally been recommended.
However, RTI then observed another problem. When room pressures were adjusted, portions of the suspended ceiling moved up and down. RTI alleged that the movement caused support wires to snap and portions of the ceiling in testing rooms to collapse.
The facility also experienced contamination problems. Investigation revealed that air was flowing in the wrong direction—from dirty-air areas into clean rooms—because the HVAC contractor had wired primary HVAC controllers backwards.
Claims Against the Architect
RTI alleged that the architect recommended the use of a suspended vinyl ceiling but failed to coordinate with the engineer to determine whether the ceiling system could withstand anticipated pressure changes within the facility.
According to RTI, the architect should have specified ceiling materials capable of accommodating the facility’s operational requirements. RTI contended that pressure fluctuations caused the suspended ceiling to move and ultimately fail, requiring replacement with hard ceilings in several animal testing rooms.
Claims Against the Engineer
RTI’s claims against the engineering firm centered on the HVAC design.
RTI’s CEO testified that the engineering design failed to satisfy the facility’s requirements for airflow direction and room pressurization control. RTI specifically alleged deficiencies involving airflow balancing, pressure regulation, equipment specifications, filtration of clean hallways, and the ability to modify pressure relationships between rooms.
RTI further claimed that the engineer represented that airflow could be adjusted independently between rooms without explaining that the entire system would require rebalancing whenever pressure adjustments were made. According to RTI, the engineer also failed to warn that pressure changes could affect the suspended ceiling system.
Claims Against the Ceiling Installer
RTI also pursued claims against the ceiling contractor.
Although the architect initially recommended a vinyl ceiling system, the ceiling contractor recommended an all-aluminum suspended ceiling, either with or without gaskets. RTI selected the contractor’s recommended aluminum gasketed ceiling, which was subsequently installed.
RTI later alleged that deficiencies in the design and installation of the ceiling contributed to the facility’s inability to perform as intended under the contract.
The Central Legal Issue: Was Expert Testimony Required?
The architect, engineer, and ceiling installer each moved for summary judgment, arguing that RTI’s claims involved professional and technical issues beyond the understanding of ordinary jurors and therefore required expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care and any breach of that standard.
RTI disagreed. It argued that the alleged deficiencies were understandable to laypersons and that expert testimony was unnecessary. Alternatively, RTI maintained that its CEO possessed sufficient experience to provide the required expert opinions.
The circuit court rejected RTI’s position and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed.
Why the Court Found Experts Necessary
The appellate court emphasized that expert testimony is generally required when claims involve technical matters outside the common knowledge of ordinary people.
The court acknowledged that some breach-of-contract claims can be proven through lay testimony when they concern straightforward contractual obligations and performance issues. However, expert testimony becomes necessary when the alleged breach concerns the technical adequacy of professional services or specialized construction work.
Claims Against the Architect
The court concluded that RTI’s allegations against the architect involved highly technical design considerations.
Whether the architect should have specified a different ceiling system, coordinated more extensively with the engineer, or anticipated the effects of pressure changes on the ceiling involved professional judgments beyond the understanding of average jurors.
As the court explained, most laypersons would not possess sufficient knowledge regarding:
- The design requirements of a specialized animal research facility;
- The relationship between air pressure and ceiling performance;
- Appropriate ceiling materials for such an environment; or
- Whether the architect’s recommendations met professional standards.
Without expert testimony establishing the applicable architectural standard of care and a breach of that standard, RTI could not prove its claims.
Claims Against the Engineer
The court reached the same conclusion regarding the engineering claims.
RTI’s allegations focused on airflow control, pressure regulation, system balancing, volume regulation, and HVAC design specifications. These subjects, the court noted, involve specialized engineering knowledge.
Average jurors would not be expected to understand the equipment required to regulate airflow and pressure, the significance of volume regulation, or whether the engineering design satisfied accepted professional standards.
Accordingly, expert testimony was required to establish both negligence and breach of contract.
Claims Against the Ceiling Installer
Even the claims against the ceiling installer required expert support.
Although construction defects can sometimes be understood by laypersons, the court observed that this project involved a uniquely specialized facility with unusual environmental and pressurization requirements. Determining whether the ceiling system was properly installed and whether installation contributed to the failures required technical expertise that ordinary jurors would not possess.
Was RTI’s CEO Qualified as an Expert?
Having determined that expert testimony was necessary, the court next addressed whether RTI’s CEO could serve as the required expert witness.
The answer was no.
The court noted that expert witnesses must possess specialized knowledge, skill, training, or experience concerning the matters on which they testify.
While the CEO had experience with animal research facilities and ventilation issues, the court found that he lacked the qualifications necessary to offer expert opinions regarding architectural standards of care, engineering design standards, HVAC installation, or ceiling system design.
Significantly, the CEO himself acknowledged numerous limitations during his testimony. He admitted that:
- He was not an architect;
- He was not an engineer;
- He was not an HVAC installer or supplier;
- He lacked engineering design experience;
- Certain aspects of the HVAC system were beyond his expertise; and
- A ceiling engineering expert would be needed to determine the cause of the ceiling failures.
The court concluded that these admissions demonstrated a lack of the specialized technical knowledge necessary to establish RTI’s claims.
Key Takeaways
The decision serves as a powerful reminder that construction defect claims involving professional design services and specialized building systems frequently require expert testimony.
When allegations concern matters such as HVAC engineering, airflow management, pressure regulation, architectural design decisions, or specialized construction systems, courts generally will not allow jurors to speculate regarding professional standards of care. Qualified experts must establish:
- The applicable standard of care;
- How the defendant deviated from that standard; and
- How the deviation caused the claimed damages.
Without such testimony, even potentially meritorious claims may never reach trial.
As the South Dakota Supreme Court succinctly concluded: “When expert testimony is required, the failure to produce expert opinions is fatal to a litigant’s case.”
For owners, contractors, design professionals, and attorneys involved in complex construction disputes, the message is clear: identifying and retaining qualified experts early in the litigation process is often essential to surviving summary judgment and advancing a claim to trial.
For more information, please click HERE.