Homeowners living in the Seal Harbor Three Condominiums in Winthrop are suing a Cambridge architectural firm for design defects that allegedly caused damage to the building’s common areas.

A recent decision by the state’s highest court may make it easier for homeowners to sue architects and engineers for damage caused by building defects.

In a case involving a Winthrop condominium, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in June that the condo trustees could sue the architectural firm for negligence because building defects had allegedly caused damage to their property.

In past cases, lower courts have wavered on the issue, with some judges deciding that a homeowner cannot sue for property deterioration caused by defects. In those particular cases, architects have often sought protection under what’s known as the economic loss rule, which bars plaintiffs from seeking money to repair defective products when no injury or physical harm is apparent.

Architects who face such negligence claims have often gotten cases dismissed before trial by raising the economic loss defense and also by arguing that homeowners are “successors” to the developers, and therefore bound to agreements made by the developer with contractors, architects or engineers. In its decision, the SJC points out that condominium boards and unit owners are not bound to such agreements.

“These are two issues [economic loss and successorship] that come up regularly in trial courts as a way for design professionals, architects and engineers, not to be responsible for design defects,” said Janet B. Fierman, the lawyer who represented the plaintiff.

Fierman, a partner at Cohen & Fierman in Boston, represented trustees of the Seal Harbor Three Condominium Trust against ADD Inc., an architectural firm in Cambridge.

The trustees argued that there were structural problems with the condominium, a 10-story building with 117 units, that caused damage to common areas. According to the lawsuit, water seeped through windows, sliding glass doors, walls and ceilings during storms. The plaintiffs had to spend money to repair water-damaged common areas.

Architects and design professionals are keeping their eyes on the outcome of the lawsuit, which must go back to a lower court to be tried. The plaintiff is seeking a seven-figure award.

‘Consumer Protection’

Charles R. Heuer, an architect and lawyer, said it’s premature to determine how the decision ultimately will affect architects and designers because the case is not yet settled. The plaintiffs still must prove the architects were negligent and that their negligence caused damage to the condominiums. A court eventually may end up siding with the architects, said Heuer, of The Heuer Law Group – a Cambridge-based firm that represents clients in the design and construction industry.

Still, other architects expressed concern about the decision.

“Condominiums are the most litigious form of work,” said Robert A. Brown, a principal with Boston-based CBT/Childs Bertman Tseckares and president of the Boston Society of Architects.

Brown, whose firm has worked on high-profile luxury condominium projects including Trinity Place in Boston, said condo construction and design is risky because so many different owners are involved.

When a reporter informed him of the court’s decision, Brown said he immediately called his attorney to find out exactly what his insurance covers. He recommended that all architects contact their attorneys and insurance carriers to discuss coverage and risk given the recent SJC ruling.

“It just puts us all on alert because there is a risk for award here,” said Brown, whose firm is currently working on The Belvedere at Prudential Center, a nine-story building of luxury condos.

The case arose in 1993 when the plaintiffs filed a complaint against ADD Inc. contending that the firm had been negligent in designing or selecting materials for the construction of the condominium. The developer, general contractor and various subcontractors and materials suppliers involved with the construction of the condos settled with the trustees.

The architects maintained that the plaintiffs couldn’t sue because they only suffered “economic losses” from the alleged defects and had not proved that the alleged defects created a dangerous condition or posed a risk for accidental injury.

A Superior Court judge agreed with the architectural firm, but the SJC overturned that decision. When that argument failed, ADD Inc. said the trustees couldn’t sue because they were bound by the terms of the contract the company had signed with the developer that had a three-year limitation. The architects’ lawyer, Warren D. Hutchison, argued that the trust was the developer’s successor.

The SJC disagreed, and ruled that the unit owners are not bound by the agreement.

“It think it’s [the decision] very important to property owners,” said Jennifer Dopazo, associate town counsel for Brookline.

Dopazo said the town of Brookline is involved in some cases dealing with architects and design defects, and lawyers often raise the economic loss defense.

“It [the court ruling] really makes it clear for plaintiffs – property owners – that as long as they allege some property damage, that’s sufficient” to proceed in court, she said.

The decision comes about a month after the SJC issued another decision aimed at protecting buyers of newly constructed homes. In that case, the SJC ruled that an implied, or unwritten, warranty of habitability existed with the sale and purchase of a new home and that a buyer can sue for hidden defects that cause serious safety issues.

“The SJC seems to be increasing consumer protection for new homes with building defects,” said Fierman.