The Dallas Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court order denying a landscape architect’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s wrongful death action based on Plaintiff’s failure to file a certificate of merit.
LandDesign, Inc. v. Johnathan Postell, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of T.P., a Deceased Minor (No. 05-25-00920-CV; April 21, 2026) stemmed from a wrongful death and survival action. After Plaintiff’s young son drowned in their subdivision’s swimming pool, Plaintiff sued the owners of the development, as well as the landscape architecture firm that had contracted with the owners to provide design services for the development’s landscaping. Plaintiff’s petition did not differentiate alleged wrongdoing between the defendants, instead asserting global negligence claims against them all. The landscape architect answered with a general denial and, among others, the affirmative defense that Plaintiff failed file a certificate of merit as required by § 150.002, CPRC. It then moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. The trial court denied the motion. Defendant sought interlocutory relief.
In an opinion by Justice Smith, the court of appeals reversed and remanded. Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying its motion to dismiss because its services for the project “were in the capacity of a registered landscape architext and [Plaintiff] did not file a certificate of merit” under § 150.002. Plaintiff responded that his claims didn’t “conclusively” arise from Defendant’s professional services as a landscape architect and thus lay outside the scope of § 150.002. Plaintiff further argued that if the court of appeals determined that the trial court erred, it should “modify the judgment to dismiss only the single specific design allegation [Defendant] identifies and remand for further proceedings—not the wholesale dismissal [Defendant] seeks.”
First, the court observed that “[a] claim arises out of the provision of professional services if the claim implicates a professional’s education, training, and experience in applying special knowledge or judgment” and that § 150.002 explicitly includes registered landscape architects. Plaintiff didn’t dispute that Defendant fit the statutory definition, but that its negligence didn’t involve the provision of professional services to begin with. Turning to § 1051.001(6)(A) and (B), Occupation Code, which define “landscape architecture,” the court focused on (B)(i), which specifies “the planning, preservation, enhancement, and arrangement of land forms, natural systems, features, and plantings, including ground and water forms.” Defendant contended that Plaintiff’s claims arose from its professional services related to the design of the swimming pool, pointing out that its contract with the developer included “coordinating with pool and fountain designer for pool and fountain MEP and structural design, and consultant for design of the pool and fountain intent, materials, and location to coordinate with pool and fountain designer for pump and MEP requirements.” As the pool and fountain constituted “water forms,” Defendant asserted, its services were covered by the statute.
Plaintiff countered that its allegations against Defendant asserted causes of action for negligent hiring, supervision, and maintenance, failure to respond to the drowning, and failure to provide safety equipment, which fall outside the statute. The court disagreed. Plaintiff’s petition, the court stated, “contains no facutal allegations that set out how [Defendant] was involved in the drowning incident or that anyone associated with [Defendant] was even present at the pool that day.” Defendant, on the other hand, offered the affidavit of its landscape architect establishing that § 150.002 applied to its services and that those services included the design of the pool and pool area. Since these constituted “water forms” under the statutory definition of landscape architecture, Plaintiff’s petition necessarily “arose out of the provision of [Defendant’s] professional servide as a landscape architect.” The trial court thus abused its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to file a certificate of merit. The court remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
