2016 - Page 3 of 3 - a/e ProNet

John Ronan Architects is an Obama Presidential Library Finalist

By Lynda

Chicago architecture firm and a/e ProNet client John Ronan Architects is one of seven finalists for the design of the Obama Presidential Library, which will be built on Chicago’s South Side. The remaining seven firms hail from all over the world, so it’s exciting that at least one “local” architect made the cut. John Ronan Architects may be best known for the dramatic Poetry Foundation building in Chicago. Best of luck to the team!

Shout-out Credit:

Mike Welbel
M.G. Welbel and Associates
650 Dundee Road, Suite 170
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: 847.412.1414
mwelbel@mgwelbel.com

The Down-Low on Broker-Verification Questionnaires

By Lynda

In what attorney Brian Stewart calls a “disturbing trend,” more and more project owners design professionals to procure separate questionnaires from their insurance brokers. These “broker-verification questionnaires” are meant to re-state or re-affirm the limits, exclusions, etc. of the relevant insurance policies to the project. If you’re an architect or engineer who has met push-back from your broker on this issue, our November 2015 issue of ProNetwork News explains why:

I: The Problem with Broker Verifications

The use of broker-verification questionnaires has been a growing trend seen most commonly in the context of construction insurance… Historically, a broker has satisfied this requirement through the production of a certificate of insurance or, if necessary, a copy of the policies themselves which demonstrate that the insured had the applicable coverage. However, a number of project owners have recently been refusing to accept certificates alone and are requiring brokers to complete a questionnaire and verification, with the understanding that a failure to complete the questionnaire will cost the broker’s client the job.

The increasingly frequent use of such broker-verification questionnaires raises a number of legal issues for the broker. The first issue deals with the broker’s authority to interpret the underlying policy between the insurer and the insured and whether a broker has the authority to confirm in writing whether a specific policy meets the requirements, not of the contract between the Owner and the insured but rather the requirements contained in the broker-verification questionnaires. The second legal issue deals with the effect of a conflict between the underlying policy and the language of the questionnaire. Specifically, what is the legal consequence when a broker completes a questionnaire that potentially contains conflicting language from the actual policy? Finally, this opinion will analyze what risks and liabilities a broker is exposed to when completing a questionnaire that contains language that is in conflict with or amends, modifies, expands, etc. the underlying policy.

II: Principles of Contract

Insurance is a matter of contract governed by the rules of contract. Unlike the ordinary commercial contract where the parties seek to ensure a commercial advantage for themselves, an insurance contract seeks to obtain some measure of financial security and protection against calamity for the insured.

Being a voluntary contract, as long as the terms and conditions made therefor are not unreasonable or in violation of legal rules and requirements, the parties may make it on such terms, and incorporate such provisions and conditions as they would see fit to adopt. The rights and obligations of parties to an insurance contract are determined by the language of the contact and the insurance policy is the law between the parties unless the contractual provisions are contrary to public opinion or law.

III: Role of the Broker

An insurance broker provides a professional service for the insured, its client and goes to the insurance market to determine what policy or policies best fit the needs of its clients.

Relevant distinctions exist between an insurance agent and an insurance broker. Whereas an agent generally represents a particular insurance company, an insurance broker generally represents only the insured. Consequently, an insurance broker owes a duty to the insured and not the insurer. Continue reading “The Down-Low on Broker-Verification Questionnaires”

Drones: Should Architects & Engineers use them?

By Lynda

They offer a bird’s eye view of construction sites. They provide breathtaking photographic opportunities for architects looking to showcase their work. And they’re fun to fly. However, while they may be intriguing tools for architects and engineers, drones open up the design firms that use them to many possibly unanticipated risks. These days, obtaining a drone is as simple as stopping at your local WalMart, but all drones are not created equal, nor are all drone pilots equally skilled and certified.

Victor O. Schinnerer’s Risk Management Blog recently offered an overview of this issue. Should your design firm use a drone in your administration of contracted services? Read on:

“Professional service firms have to be aware that the use of drones is not a simple transition in the process of observing the work on a project site. As with web cameras, drone cameras often produce far more images than are used in the evaluation of a project. If not properly denoted in a contract, the scope of the firm’s services could include the use of all the available images as part of the firm’s duty to observe and evaluate the project as part of construction contract administration duties.

“Additionally, while licensed drone operators are undoubtedly careful about having general liability insurance that protects others from their negligence in aerial activities, and follow the FAA’s rules and guidelines, many firms using drone photography are doing so as amateurs. Turning hobby activities into commercial uses is likely to be unlawful, dangerous, and uninsured.”

Continue reading Drone use can put firms at risk beyond their knowledge by Frank Musica

Announcing our New Scholarship for Engineering Students

By Lynda

Attention engineering students! This year, a/e ProNet has partnered with the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) to offer a brand new scholarship:

The a/e ProNet Engineering Scholarship
Award: $2,500
Deadline: March 7, 2016

Eligibility

Students must be entering their junior, senior, fifth, or master’s degree year, in the fall of 2016 to qualify for the general scholarships. In addition, a student must be a U.S. citizen pursuing a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in engineering or in an accredited land-surveying program to qualify.

Bachelor’s students must be in an ABET-accredited engineering program; Master’s students must either be in an ABET-accredited Master of Science (MS) engineering program, or have a Bachelor of Science (BS) degree from an ABET-accredited engineering program.

You can find the ACEC Scholarship Application here.

For more information, visit the ACEC website’s scholarship page.

The scholarship will be administered by the ACEC, and a/e ProNet member Mark Jackson of JCJ Insurance Agency in Orlando, Florida will serve as our representative on the committee. Good luck to all applicants!

Document Retention: More Paper or Paper-Less?

By Lynda

Which is better, more or less documentation in your project file after the job is complete? Despite recent advances in technology, document retention has become a difficult, expensive and complex proposition. Computers have changed design professionals’ work flows and methods, greatly increasing efficiencies, but also exponentially multiplying the volume of data; e-mails, attachments, drawing revisions, text and voice messages, not to mention folks are still sending faxes and letters, actual paper ones. All of this adds up and can become an unmanageable mess, even for the best of us.

Making decisions now about which project documents to keep and which to discard is like trying to pick who will win the Super Bowl in the year 2024. You never know which ones will be the most important until you are right in the middle of a claim. Experience and common sense tell us that there are certain documents that, no matter what, are probably safe bets to come in handy down the road. You may also be required by law or contract to keep certain records for certain time frames.

This article will offer suggestions on those categories of critical project documents necessary to defend claims, and which ones are better off being discarded as a matter of course after project completion. The question ultimately is framed as “what to keep and for how long?” Of course, these are only suggestions, and you should discuss implementation of any document retention program with your chosen legal and accounting advisors in your specific jurisdiction. Further, this article only addresses retention of construction project documents and not corporate, HR or tax records.

“Age of Discovery”

Modern construction projects, with all this data, are subject to modern lawsuits. These lawsuits are conducted by increasingly younger, tech savvy and sophisticated lawyers who sometimes make the litigation more about the discovery effort than about the facts of the case. Parties are allowed to submit detailed and specific “requests for production of documents” once in the lawsuit, or issue subpoenas to non-parties. State and federal court discovery rules could require parties to turn over copies of all information they have in their possession related to the project. Continue reading “Document Retention: More Paper or Paper-Less?”

Raising the Federal Gas Tax: A Debate

By Lynda

America’s federal highway system–once a source of great national pride–is disintegrating. Why? For one thing, it’s been 20 years since the Federal Gas Tax was last raised. President Ronald Reagan increased the tax to just over 18 cents a gallon, reminding the American people that the federal highway system required an ongoing source of income for maintenance. The Highway Trust Fund–where the Federal Gas Tax is collected–provides funding for road, bridge, and mass transit projects across the country. Today, it’s running out of money. Should this tax be raised?

It’s an important question, and if you’re not sure where you fall on the issue, here’s a fun place to start…

Intelligence Squared US hosted a debate in October wherein a panel of four experts, two on either side, addressed this motion: Raise the Federal Gas Tax to fund infrastructure.

“There are many arguments for a leaner fund, among them, the idea that scaling back the program would force government to prioritize projects and eliminate waste. But proponents of the tax say that it still plays a vital role in supporting infrastructure, and that perpetual shortfalls have led to construction delays and uncertainty. Should Congress raise the federal gas tax?”

Listen to the podcast for free either on the website or download via iTunes.