The South Dakota Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling in *RTI, LLC v. Pro Engineering*, partially affirming and partially reversing a circuit court decision in a multi-party construction dispute that involved five defendant companies.
The case, designated as 2025 S.D. 64, involved plaintiffs RTI, LLC and RTI Holdings, LLC against Pro Engineering, Inc.; DesignArc Group, Inc.; F.M. Acoustical Tile, Inc.; Trane U.S. Inc.; and Ekern Home Equipment Company. A sixth defendant, Re Com, Inc., was also named in the litigation.
The appeal originated from the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial Circuit in Brookings County, South Dakota, where the Honorable Dawn M. Elshere presided over the case. The Supreme Court considered the matter on briefs submitted in August 2024 and filed its opinion in November 2025.
While the court document does not provide details about the specific claims or the nature of the construction dispute, the involvement of multiple specialized companies suggests the case likely involved a complex commercial construction project. The defendants include engineering firms, acoustical tile specialists, HVAC equipment manufacturers, and home equipment companies, indicating the dispute may have involved building systems integration or performance issues.
The notation "#30565-aff in pt & rev in pt-JMK" in the court record indicates the Supreme Court partially affirmed and partially reversed the lower court's decision. This mixed outcome suggests that while some aspects of the circuit court's ruling were upheld, other portions were overturned, likely requiring further proceedings or different remedies for the parties involved.
RTI Holdings and RTI, LLC were represented by a team from Cadwell Sanford Deibert & Garry LLP in Sioux Falls, including attorneys Shawn M. Nichols, Andrew S. Hurd, and Claire E. Wilka. The defendants retained separate counsel, reflecting the complex nature of the multi-party litigation.
DesignArc Group, Inc. was represented by Gregory H. Wheeler of Boyce Law Firm, LLP in Sioux Falls. Ekern Home Equipment Company retained counsel from Arthur Chapman Kettering Smetak & Pikala, P.A. in Minneapolis, with attorneys Juan M. Avila and Aaron C. Abelleria, as well as Daniel R. Fritz from Ballard Spahr LLP in Sioux Falls.
F.M. Acoustical Tile, Inc. was represented by Mark J. Arndt and Ryan W.W. Redd of Evans, Haigh & Arndt, LLP in Sioux Falls. Additional defendants were represented by Eric J. Steinhoff and Brandon D. Meshbesher of Lind, Jensen, Sullivan & Peterson, P.A.
The case demonstrates the complexity that can arise in commercial construction disputes, particularly when multiple contractors, subcontractors, and equipment suppliers are involved in a single project. Construction litigation often involves claims related to defective work, delays, cost overruns, or failure to meet specifications, though the specific nature of the claims in this case is not detailed in the available court record.
The mixed ruling from the South Dakota Supreme Court suggests that the legal issues were nuanced, with valid arguments on multiple sides. Partial affirmances and reversals are common in complex commercial litigation where different legal theories or factual determinations may warrant different outcomes.
For the construction industry in South Dakota, this case highlights the importance of clear contractual terms and proper documentation in multi-party commercial projects. The involvement of out-of-state counsel and national companies like Trane U.S. Inc. suggests the case had implications beyond local practice.
The timing of the decision, with briefs considered in August 2024 and the opinion filed in November 2025, reflects the deliberative process of appellate review in complex commercial matters. The extended timeline between briefing and decision indicates the court took considerable time to analyze the multiple legal issues presented.
The case also illustrates the specialized nature of construction law, where disputes often involve technical issues related to building systems, performance standards, and the coordination of multiple trades and suppliers. The presence of acoustical, HVAC, and engineering companies as defendants suggests the dispute involved building systems that require precise coordination and performance.
While the specific outcomes for each party remain unclear from the available record, the mixed ruling indicates that the litigation will likely continue in some form, either through remand to the trial court for further proceedings or through implementation of the Supreme Court's partial reversal.