Legal Update: Louisiana Second Circuit Reaffirms its Prior Holding of the Application of the Five-Year Peremptive Period in Actions Against Design Professionals
Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and Patrick A. “Trey” Talley III
City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith Inc., 2025 WL 3223888 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/19/25)
Earlier this year, we provided a case summary of City of Shreveport v. CDM Smith Inc., 2025 WL 1947593, in which the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal issued a major ruling that significantly extends the time parties have to bring negligence claims against architects and engineers. In that decision, the Second Circuit held that claims against design professionals—whether framed in tort, contract, or otherwise—are governed by the five-year peremptive period in La. R.S. 9:5607, rather than the one-year tort prescriptive period in Civil Code article 3492. That decision significantly expanded the time available to assert negligence claims against architects and engineers and aligned the Second Circuit with the First Circuit on this much-contested issue. The Second Circuit has now issued a new, follow-up opinion in the same litigation that further expands the City of Shreveport’s claims against design professionals.
In its recent November 19, 2025 decision, the court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of all claims against Black & Veatch (“B&V”), the subcontracted engineer involved in preparing the City’s hydraulic model based, on two central assignments of error. The first issue was whether the City could sue B&V for breach of contract despite not being a party to B&V’s subcontract with Burk-Kleinpeter, Inc. (“BKI”). Although the subcontract contained standard language disclaiming any third-party beneficiaries, the Second Circuit held that the City was, in fact, an intended beneficiary. The court emphasized that the subcontract repeatedly tied B&V’s obligations to the City’s prime agreement with BKI, incorporated the City’s plans and project documents, conditioned B&V’s payment on the City’s payment to BKI, and provided that the subcontract would terminate if the City’s prime contract ended. Taken together, these provisions showed a clear intent to benefit the City, and the court concluded that a stipulation pour autrui existed despite the boilerplate disclaimer. Thus, the City had a right and cause of action against B&V for breach of contract.
Additionally, the Second Circuit also reversed the trial court’s ruling that the City’s tort claims against B&V had prescribed. Reaffirming its earlier holding in this same litigation, the court again concluded that La. R.S. 9:5607 applies to tort and contract claims alike when brought against engineers for their professional services. Because the City alleged that B&V continued working on the hydraulic model through 2019 and filed suit in 2022, the claims were well within the five-year peremptive period and therefore timely. This latest ruling reinforces the five-year limitation period for design-professional liability.
