Supreme Court of South Carolina

Case no.: 28312
Date filed: January 21, 2026

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that an expert witness “need not be a member of the same profession as the defendant.” A licensed professional engineer was allowed to opine regarding the standard of care for architects.

480 King Street LLC planned to add a stair tower to its property in Charleston and retained the architectural firm of Glick/Boehm & Associates Inc. (GBA) to provide design services and construction administration services. The construction phase services included monitoring the contractor’s work for compliance with the plans, specifications and applicable building codes.

Well after completion of the project, 480 King experienced water intrusion problems. The owner complained GBA had improperly designed and monitored significant elements of the work; namely, the elevator, stairs, windows and flashing. The project owner sued the architect, alleging both negligence and breach of contract in the design and in the administration of the construction contract.

In order to maintain the suit, 480 King had to comply with the South Carolina Frivolous Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, S.C. Code Ann. section 15-36-100, which mandates that any negligence claim against a licensed professional—including design professionals—must be supported by an affidavit from a qualified expert detailing the professional’s standard of care and the alleged deviation from that standard. Subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of the statute indicate the qualified expert should be a licensed member of the same profession as the defendant. However, subsection (A)(3) expands the definition to include any individual with “scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge which may assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence and determining a fact or issue in the case, by reason of the individual’s study, experience, or both.”

The project owner provided an affidavit signed by Louis Hackney, a licensed professional engineer with extensive experience assessing building conditions and design and construction problems. Hackney also had extensive experience administering and inspecting construction work, though he was not a licensed architect.

GBA moved to dismiss 480 King’s suit on the grounds that Hackney was not a licensed architect. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the case ultimately reached the state’s highest court.

The Supreme Court of South Carolina said that under the Frivolous Civil Proceedings Act, the affidavit supporting a professional negligence claim need not be submitted by an individual holding the same professional license as the defendant.

“Had the legislature intended to limit the definition of ‘expert witness’ to only people practicing in the same field as the defendant, it would not have inserted (A)(3) as an alternative definition. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals’ holding that the affiant need not be a member of the same profession as the defendant, as long as the requirements of (A)(3) are met.”

The court noted that while Hackney had initially stated he would proffer an opinion regarding a design architect’s standard of care, he had later—in a deposition—walked that back and stated he would limit his opinion to contract administration. Consequently, 480 King could maintain a suit against GBA for negligent administration, but not for negligent design.

“As we have held, under section 15-36-100(A)(3), a non-architect could potentially submit an acceptable affidavit to support a claim for negligent architectural design; however, that is a moot point in this case because Hackney confirmed in his third deposition that he would not offer an opinion on any subject other than construction administration. 480 King has no claim against GBA for negligent architectural design because 480 King did not submit an affidavit from an expert as to architectural design.”

Many states have similar statutes to weed out frivolous professional malpractice claims. It is common for those statutes to expressly require an affidavit from a similarly licensed individual. The South Carolina legislature chose to add subsection (A)(3), which states the broad general rule for the use of expert testimony.

Even though an individual has been qualified to offer expert opinion, the individual must be careful to stay within the lines of his or her actual experience as it applies to the case. The engineer in this case was prepared to testify that when administering a construction contract, the services are similar regardless of whether the provider is an architect or an engineer.

Participants:
For 480 King Street: Brent Souther Halversen, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
For Glick/Boehm & Associates: Kent Taylor Stair, Charleston, South Carolina

Before: Judges James, Few, Kittredge, Hill, and Verdin

Opinion by: Judge James

Outcome: Court of Appeals ruling affirmed in part and reversed in part

Source: Please click here to read the complete opinion.