Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Boston Partner Stephen J. Orlando successfully defended an appeal challenging a summary judgment order in a defamation and tortious interference case.
The case, covered in an article by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, arose out of two public construction projects in Massachusetts in which GRSM’s client served as the project architect. The architect was responsible for reviewing bids submitted by general contractors for the projects and advising the project owners as to whether the bidders were “responsible” under the definition stated within the public bid laws (M.G.L. c. 149).
The plaintiff, a contractor, submitted bids to work as the general contractor for both projects. The architect recalled working with the plaintiff on a prior project and believed that, during that project, the plaintiff submitted unnecessary change orders and was contentious with the project owner. The architect denied having any animosity towards the plaintiff but acknowledged that they had an unfavorable opinion of the plaintiff based upon their experience together.
In connection with their review of the bids, the architect spoke with the plaintiff’s references from prior public projects. Those references expressed concerns about the plaintiff’s litigiousness, use of change orders, and inability to adhere to a schedule. The architect summarized the information provided by the references and submitted reports to the clients. In one of the reports, the architect opined that the plaintiff did not qualify as a “responsible” bidder. The clients chose not to accept the plaintiff’s bids on their respective projects.
The plaintiff filed a complaint in Middlesex Superior Court, alleging that the architect defamed the plaintiff and tortiously interfered with the plaintiff’s ability to secure the project contracts. The plaintiff alleged that the architect held a “grudge” from their prior experience working together and, therefore, provided an unfairly negative assessment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged lost profits in excess of $1 million.
Orlando filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the architect had a contractual obligation to provide this information and had no reason to doubt that the information was true. He also argued that neither the parties’ prior experience nor the architect’s opinion of the plaintiff established that the architect had an “improper” motive when evaluating the plaintiff’s qualifications. The Superior Court agreed and entered judgment in favor of the architect. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Following oral arguments, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court’s summary judgment order. The Appeals Court agreed that the architect had a contractual duty to provide this information to their clients. The Appeals Court rejected the plaintiff’s suggestion that the architect had an improper motive based upon the architect’s prior experience with the plaintiff. Rather, the Appeals Court reasoned that the architect’s experience with the plaintiff was “highly relevant” and that the architect could appropriately consider it when providing an assessment of the plaintiff.
The Appeals Court also emphasized that the case involved two publicly funded construction projects. The court noted the importance of protecting the architect’s ability to render honest advice to a public project owner, given the owner’s obligation to spend taxpayer dollars appropriately.