Appeals from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1963, No. 2591, in case of Branna Construction Corporation v. West Allegheny Joint School Authority and Celli-Flynn Architects and Engineers.
Louis Vaira, with him John M. Shane, for appellant.
David B. Fawcett, Jr., with him Charles E. Evans, and Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, for appellant.
John A. Metz, Jr., with him Jacob A. Markel, Seymour J. Schafer, and Metz, Cook, Hanna & Kelly, and Markel, Markel, Levenson & Fischer, for appellee.
Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Cohen. Mr. Chief Justice Bell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
These are appeals from judgments entered in the court below in favor of Branna Construction Corporation
(Branna) against appellants, Celli-Flynn Architects and Engineers, and the West Allegheny Joint School Authority (Authority), in the amount of $50,000.
Branna, as a result of being the successful bidder for the construction of a new high school building in West Allegheny, entered into a formal contract with the Authority on July 21, 1960, whereby Branna agreed to construct the new building for the sum of $1,268,000. The firm of Celli-Flynn had been retained under a separate agreement with the Authority to serve as architect and engineer for the construction project.
After completion of the contract, Branna instituted the present action of assumpsit against the Authority and Celli-Flynn, which drew the plans and specifications for the new building, alleging that it was entitled to receive extra compensation in the amount of $94,416 for certain additional excavation work performed. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that immediately upon commencing the excavation of the property, Branna discovered that the test borings of the subsurface conditions as supplied in the plans and specifications attached to the contract were in fact inaccurate, misleading, and materially misrepresented the subsurface conditions to such an extent that Branna was compelled to suffer additional costs in order to perform the excavation work properly. It was further alleged that Branna had relied upon the test borings and that it did not have sufficient time to make its own independent investigation.
The Authority and Celli-Flynn then filed preliminary objections to the complaint in the nature of a motion for a more specific pleading. After the preliminary objections were denied, appellants filed an answer and "New Matter" setting forth ...