Can Architects and Engineers Limit Their Liability? Lessons from a Recent New Jersey Appellate Decision

In Harvest Restaurants Group, LLC v. Structural Workshops, LLC (N.J. App. Div. June 1, 2026), the Appellate Division enforced a negotiated limitation-of-liability clause in an engineering services agreement, citing New Jersey’s strong policy favoring freedom of contract and risk allocation between sophisticated commercial parties.

The restaurant owner retained a structural engineer for less than $10,000 in connection with a major renovation. After the work was completed, disputes arose over alleged structural deficiencies. The project was ultimately found to have been designed under the wrong building code, leading to a temporary restaurant closure and corrective work. The owner sued the engineer for professional negligence and breach of contract, seeking more than $2 million in damages.

The engineering agreement, however, capped the engineer’s liability at $50,000. The Appellate Division upheld that cap, distinguishing an unenforceable exculpatory clause (which eliminates liability) from a limitation-of-liability provision (which limits exposure). The court also rejected arguments that the clause was void as against public policy merely because the claims alleged a deviation from the professional standard of care or implicated public safety concerns.

Although unpublished, the decision offers practical guidance for drafting and negotiating limitation-of-liability provisions in professional services agreements by emphasizing the importance of clear contract language, bargaining context, and the distinction between limiting a design professional’s liability and eliminating it altogether.