FACT SCENARIO H (Questions 32-33):

In 2008, Owner hired YYZ Design (YYZ) to design and Geddy Construciton (GC) to construct an office building. As part of its mechanical design, YYZ specified two RTU's as being necessary to achieve Owner's HVAC requirements. After the project was built, it was determined that YYZ's overall mechanical design was undersized ... an additional RTU was necessary. GC estimated it would cost $95,000 for both equipment and installation. An additional $55,000 would be necessary to re-work portions of the project that had already been satisfactorily completed but would have to be removed and replaced to accommodate the new mechanical equipment.

In 2015, Owner sells the office building to John Rutsey. Four years after Rutsey occupied and used the office building for its intended purpose, a structural beam above a common area failed, causing a portion of the roof and ceiling to collapse, killing Rutsey, who happened to be the only person in the building that day. Experts who evaluated what happened determined that the beam had been both poorly designed and negligently installed when the building was originally constructed. In short, the experts agreed that it was a miracle the failure did not happen sooner. Rutsey's estate files suit against GC and YYZ for breach of contract and negligence. Of the following, what is the most likely outcome of the lawsuit:

Group of answer choices

The suit will be sustained against both GC and YYZ for their negligence and breaches of their agreements with Owner.

The suit for breach of contract will be dismissed, because Rutsey did not contract with either GC or YYZ. However, as they were both negligent, GC and YYZ will likely be liable for the wrongful death of Mr. Rutsey.

The suit would be dismissed in its entirety under 12 O.S. 109.

The suit will be dismissed as to GC under 12 O.S. 109, but YYZ would still beliable under thestatute of repose.