Justice Thomas Mercure
Plaintiffs appealed from two ordersone granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment limiting the scope of their liability, the second denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for reargument. Plaintiffs sued defendants for negligence and breach of contract. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment enforcing the limitation of liability clause in the contract so as not to exceed the total fee for services rendered on the project. Supreme Court granted the motion holding liability was limited to the amount of fees paid by plaintiffs in the event of a judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. The court also denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for reargument. The panel affirmed the granting of partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs argued defendants’ conduct constituted gross negligence, abrogating the limitation of liability clause. The panel disagreed finding the letter plaintiffs relied on, to prove defendants failed to use a flood elevation report when designing the home resulted in an allegedly faulty design, did not raise a question of fact if defendant was grossly negligent. It ruled while plaintiffs may have stated claims based on breach of contract, the conduct alleged did not evince the necessary reckless indifference rendering the limitation clause unenforceable.
