<< January 2011 | Home | March 2011 >>

Right to rely on information provided by your client

from the desk of Nahom Gebre

The standard AIA and EJCDC form documents state that the client will provide surveys and other information to the consultants and that the consultants are entitled to rely on the accuracy of such information. This allows you to describe the scope of services you are providing correctly since you are referencing information on which you are entitled to rely. Client-drafted contracts, however, may change the responsibilities. Recently, we came across the following clause in a contract review:
 
 
Client shall furnish surveys describing physical characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the site of the Project. However, the Consultant remains fully responsible for verifying the accuracy of this information.
 
If you agree to this provision, it means that you have taken on the responsibility of verifying the accuracy of the information provided. Depending on the project and the information provided you have to decide whether this is a reasonable responsibility to assume under the circumstances. From a risk management perspective, it is prudent to examine your scope of services and increase the fees you are charging for the increased risks if the client is unwilling to provide you with a right to rely on the information provided.

The Difference Between Design Professionals and Contractors

From the desk of Judy Mendoza

Many clients of design professionals do not understand the difference between design professionals and contractors. This is particularly true when a design professional is being retained as a subconsultant to a design-builder, but it can occur with all types of clients on a myriad of projects. 

When I review a contract in which a design professional is referred to as “Contractor” or “Subcontractor,” a red flag goes up. While there is nothing inherently wrong with a design professional being referred to as a "Contractor” or “Subcontractor,”  the use of these terms may be an indication that the contract being offered is one that is more appropriate for hiring someone to build a portion of the project, rather than for retaining a design professional.
 
Contractors have very different duties and responsibilities from design professionals. A design professional’s duty is to "exercise the degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by a reputable design professional in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances." The legal system recognizes that a design professional cannot guarantee a perfect result, and professional liability insurance only provides coverage for damage caused by the design professional’s breach of a standard of reasonable care. Professional liability insurance policies exclude coverage for claims arising out of express warranties or guarantees. Coverage is for professional services provided, and not for assumed contractual obligations. Coverage does not "stretch" to cover a warranty of services or a contractual promise beyond meeting the standard of care.
 
Contracts that are traditionally used when hiring a contractor contain many terms that are inappropriate when securing services from a design professional. Examples include such words as work, warrant, guarantee, and supervise. Such contracts may include the phrase “responsibility for construction means and methods and job site safety,” or “requirements regarding liquidated damages and bonding.” Indemnity provisions in these types of contracts are typically not limited to negligence.
 
Here are some examples of problems found in a recently reviewed “contractor agreement” offered to a civil engineer to update a Master Utilities Record Plan: 
  • The engineer was asked to secure a performance bond.
  • The Agreement contained a “time is of the essence” provision as well as a “liquidated damages” provision.
  • The indemnification was not limited to the extent damages were caused by the “Contractor’s” negligent acts, errors and omissions, and it contained an uninsurable duty to defend the client.
  • The engineer was required to provide an uninsurable one-year warranty that the “workmanship and materials be proper and sufficient for the purpose contemplated,” “be free from defects,” and that the “work shall conform to, perform as set forth in, and meet all requirements of this Agreement.”
  • No professional standard of care language was included and there was no requirement to carry professional liability insurance.
If you are presented with a similar type of contract you should try to persuade your client that it is the best interest of both you and the client to use a professional services agreement that is better suited to procuring design services.

 

Hotel Built in Six Days

Chinese building technology could affect US construction industry

Have you ever heard of a 15-story building being constructed in less than one week? China’s Broad Group, with the goal of showcasing the efficiency and pure speed of its construction technology, accomplished such a feat in constructing the Ark Hotel in Changsha in less than six days. Well, kind of. The foundation and other below ground construction was completed before they started the clock, and the building was constructed from prefabricated parts which had already been manufactured off-site. Nevertheless, the speed with which the building was erected is very impressive. 

While the speed of the construction allowed by this building technology will likely garner most of the attention, the technology is also important because of how environmentally friendly it is. In an industry that is making an effort to get greener, the energy efficiency, reduction in material use, and building waste minimization offered by the Broad Group’s technology should pique the interest of many in the construction industry worldwide. The company also champions its building methods as extremely safe for workers. Indeed, no workers were injured during the hotel’s construction. 
 
The Chinese modular building technology could drive more efficient building techniques in the United States. The competition, which could be heightened by the willingness of the Chinese to finance construction in the US, could result in a disruptive change to both the design and construction industries in the US, where both design and construction rely on project-specific teams coming together for what is an inefficient process. In an age of global competition and clients looking for fast results at bargain prices, such a technological advancement could mean that US firms lose out on projects.

Be Wary of Client-Created Solutions for "Errors or Omissions"

From the desk of Frank Musica

A professional service firm, like any business, is responsible for harm to its client caused by the firm’s breach of its contract. But breach of contract is not what professional liability insurance covers. All professionals must meet an applicable standard of care for the services provided, and must rectify any harm caused if they are negligent in their performance. It is this professional obligation that is within the scope of professional liability insurance coverage. 

Many clients, however, want to conflate the two responsibilities. At times this is accomplished through a liquidated damages provision—a stated amount due from a party based on a specific contractual occurrence or nonoccurrence. Clients may also set up elaborate payment withholding or contractually obligated payment schemes based on their decision that professional services were deficient. Sometimes these are applied beyond a “threshold of harm” amount.

For instance, a recent contract we reviewed stated that the design firm would be responsible for 25% of the cost of items or features omitted from bidding documents, 50% of the cost of errors in the bidding documents discovered “prior to installation,” 100% of the cost of any delay caused, and 100% of the cost of reconstruction, replacement, and delays if there has been “a partial or complete installation” of something because of an error in the bidding documents. It seems like a very clean and quick way to determine a remedy; the client will determine fault and either withhold payment or demand the contractual amount from the design firm.
 
However, any contractually assumed payment scheme falls outside of the coverage of professional liability insurance. Professional liability coverage only pays for actual damages (losses, costs, expenses) to the extent they are the result of the firm’s failure to meet the standard of care for the services provided. This finding of negligent performance cannot be made unilaterally by a client. And the withholding of a fee is not the same as a demand for money or services based on an allegation of negligent performance, which defines the claim trigger for professional liability insurance coverage.
 
When a client wants a simple contractual solution to its dissatisfaction with any aspect of professional services, be wary. Unless the contractual remedy tracks with your normal legal liability as a professional, do not expect professional liability insurance to respond. Both your firm and your client should recognize that the risk is uninsured. And that might mean that you should charge significantly more for your services to fund your uninsurable exposure.

Engineer's Contractual Duty

Illinois Supreme Court lays down the law about the duty of an engineer

On January 21, 2011, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Thompson v. Gordon that a design professional’s duty is described by the terms of the contract and cannot be expanded based on expert testimony offered by an opposing party. The engineering firm in this case had been hired to design the replacement of an existing bridge deck. Approximately six years after construction was completed, the plaintiff was injured when another driver lost control of the car, hit the median separating traffic, and landed on the car the plaintiff was traveling in. The plaintiff’s expert testified that the replacement of an existing bridge deck required the engineering firm to consider adding a Jersey barrier in the median to improve the bridge deck. The court held that as a matter of law the engineering firm’s duty to a third party is described by the contract and cannot be expanded by plaintiff’s expert testimony.

 
This decision is an important victory for design professionals. It is critical that design firms take the time to properly define their scope of services in clear and unambiguous terms so that a third party (like a judge) can determine the parties’ intent. As this case shows, it is important that design firms have the scope of services included in the contract before services begin.
 
The recent opinion can be found at http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2011/January/110066.pdf.

Construction Defect Claims Addressed in Recent Court Cases

Results Could Affect Design Professionals

In construction defect cases it is often difficult to determine what damages were caused by negligent design and what damages were caused by faulty construction. Design professionals have coverage under a professional liability policy for damages caused by their negligent acts, errors, and omissions. Traditionally, damages caused by contractors have been covered by the contractor’s comprehensive general liability (CGL) policy. Although CGL policies excluded damage to the contractor’s “work product,” it covered damages to other property that resulted from the contractor’s faulty work. For example, a poorly constructed roof might result in water damage to the contents of a warehouse. The CGL policy would not pay to repair the roof but would pay for the damage to the contents. Several recent cases, however, may change an insurance company’s obligation to pay for these “other” damages. If the courts hold that these damages are not covered by the contractor’s CGL insurance, contractors may have to pay these claims out of their company’s personal assets. This could result in design professionals becoming bigger targets with “deeper pockets” due to the availability of their professional liability insurance policies.

 

These cases have caused the courts to address the issue of whether or not construction defect claims constitute an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. In Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. vs. Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. the Supreme Court of South Carolina found that an “occurrence” is an accident that occurs by chance with unintended and harmful results. The court ruled that there was no “occurrence” when a contractor’s faulty workmanship on a condominium project resulted in water intrusion because the water intrusion and ensuing damage were foreseeable consequences of the faulty workmanship and therefore not covered under the contractor’s CGL policy.

 

However, a similar case in Colorado was overturned by the state legislature.

 

A recent case in Hawaii (Group Builders, Inc and Tradewind Insurance Company, LTD vs. Admiral Insurance Company and National Interstate Insurance Company) also held that construction defect claims do not constitute an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Interestingly, however, the majority of insurance carriers in Hawaii have not been denying coverage to contractors. There is speculation that the carriers are doing this so that the state legislature does not become as involved as it did in Colorado.

 

More than ever, design professionals should use sound risk management practices when selecting new projects—especially condo projects. Design professionals should insist upon providing full construction phase services and should urge developers to retain contractors using qualifications-based selection procedures. 

 

It will be interesting to see if the courts in other states follow suit.