(holding that a plaintiff who was not in privity with the defendants was not allowed to assert a claim for negligent review of shop drawings under the exception). Plaintiffs contend that privity is not required to support their professional negligence claim against R.L. Brown and cite to Balboa Insurance Company v. Fulton County, 148 Ga. App. 328 (1978), which held: [W]here a construction contract requires, as a condition of payments to the contractor, a certificate or estimate of an architect, engineer, or other person designated in the contract, showing the amounts due, the owner is not responsible, as against the surety on the contractor's bond, for the mistakes of the architect or engineer, and the surety is not discharged from liability to the owner by reason of payments made in good faith in accordance with overestimates or erroneous certificates, although such payments exceed, in fact, the sums due under the contract.
Id. In support of their professional negligence claim, plaintiffs cite to Balboa Insurance Company v. Fulton County, 148 Ga. App. 328 (1978), which held: [W]here a construction contract requires, as a condition of payments to the contractor, a certificate or estimate of an architect, engineer, or other person designated in the contract, showing the amounts due, the owner is not responsible, as against the surety on the contractor's bond, for the mistakes of the architect or engineer, and the surety is not discharged from liability to the owner by reason of payments made in good faith in accordance with overestimates or erroneous certificates, although such payments exceed, in fact, the sums due under the contract.
Nat'l Union Indem. Co. v. G. E. Bass Co., 369 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1966). However, courts have held that this defense does not apply when the owner has in good faith relied upon the certifications of its architects or engineers. See, e.g., Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Town of Cloverdale, 699 F.2d 417 (7th Cir. 1983); Balboa Ins. Co. v. Fulton Co., 251 Ga. App. 328 (Ga.Ct.App. 1978); Continental Casualty Co. v. Public Building Authority of City of Scottsboro, 318 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1967) ("It may be laid down as a general rule that payments made by the Owner to a construction contractor in accordance with the terms of the contract do not release the surety on the contractor's bond from liability to the owner.";Payments or Advancements to Building Contractor by Obligee as Affecting rights as Between Obligee and Surety on Contractor's Bond, 127 A.L.R. 10 ("The rule seems to be settled that where a construction contract requires, as a condition of payments to the contractor, a certificate or estimate of an architect, engineer, or other person designated in the contract, showing the amounts due, the owner is not responsible, as against the surety on the contractor's bond, for the mistakes of the architect or engineer, and the surety is not discharged from liability to the owner by reason of payments made in good faith in accordance with overestimates or erroneous cer