beyond the contract by affixing his professional engineering seal to the foundation plans. However, there is no support under Virginia law for the argument that an engineering seal creates an independent tort duty, or that providing a professional service creates an independent tort duty. An engineer performing a professional service pursuant to a contract does f approval on plans made pursuant to a contract, there is no support for the argument that the seal or Servinsky’s status as a professional created an independent duty. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Virginia has repeatedly held that a claim for breach of professional duties is properly brought as a breach of contract claim. Comptroller of Va. ex rel. Va. Military Inst. v. King, 217 Va. 751, 232 S.E.2d 895, 899-900 (1977) (<HOLDING>); Oleyar v. Kerr, 217 Va. 88, 225 S.E.2d 398,
holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach