On April 27, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 496 (“SB-496”) into law. SB-496 will significantly lessen the burden of indemnity provisions and the dreaded immediate duty to defend in both public and private contracts with design professionals. Efforts to obtain passage began several years ago and were spearheaded by the hard work of the American Council of Civil Engineering Companies, California Chapter (“ACEC-CA”) with the support of American Institute of Architects, California Chapter (“AIA-CA”), as well as member firms. Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP was involved with both ACEC-CA and AIA-CA in assisting with pushing the bill through.

Authored by state Senator Anthony Canella (R-Ceres), SB-496 significantly expands Civil Code section 2782.8 protections to add private contracts entered into by design professionals after January 1, 2018. Importantly, SB-496 limits the “duty to defend” to the comparative fault of the professional which puts both private contracts and public contracts on equal footing.

What does this mean in practical terms?

For all private contracts entered into by a design professional prior to January 1, 2018 (meaning those contracts without the protections of SB-496) that contain a provision obligating the design professional to indemnify and/or defend their client, the design professional could be on the hook for all of their client’s attorneys’ fees and costs by virtue of being sued, even if the design professional was ultimately found not to be at fault. For private and public contracts entered into after January 1, 2018, with the protections of SB-496, if the design professional is found to be 25% at fault, then the law provides that they would only be liable for 25% of the fees and costs of a party seeking contractual indemnity and defense reimbursement. If found 0% at fault, they would not be responsible for any of their client’s attorneys’ fees or costs.

Currently, there is no way to insure to cover the costs and exposure created by an immediate “duty to defend” provision because, though professional liability insurance is available to design professionals, it only covers damages that result from a design professional’s negligence. This bill is a fair compromise because it protects against the design professional’s uninsurable first-dollar defense indemnity obligation while allowing a client the ability to recover those costs and fees tied directly to the percentage of fault. Assuming the governor signs the bill which is expected, this is a big step in protecting design professionals from the harsh impact of indemnity provisions in future public and private contracts.

About the Authors

Justin D. Witzmann

Ryan P. Harley

Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice. Anyone who reads this article should consult with an attorney before acting on anything contained in this or any other article on legal matters, as facts and circumstances vary from case to case. This post was originally published as a newsletter by Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP in April 2017. It has been reposted with permission.

Copyright Rights and Wrongs

Copyright DefinitionCopyright seems like a rather lofty notion. Few put copyright at the top of their list of must-haves in contract negotiations, and even fewer take the time to actually register their documents for copyright protection. But you do have copyright protections under current law. That copyright can come in handy as a risk management tool as well as leverage in a fee dispute. Unfortunately, many design professionals give away their rights vis-à-vis their contracts without a full appreciation of the implications of their actions.

Copyright statutes have been on our books since the 1700s. The Copyright Act (Title 17 of the US Code) provides useful protection applicable to your practice by including pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, as well as architectural works, as copyrightable materials. Architectural works include drawings, models and the structure itself. “Arrangement of spaces and elements” are protected, but not “individual standard features.” Registering your architectural works creates a public record of the registration and is essential in an infringement action. It takes 30 minutes and $30 to complete. But even if you do not register your works, they are still protected unless you give those rights away by contract.

Copyright in Standard Design Contracts

Standard design industry contracts (e.g., AIA and EJCDC), keep the copyright with the design professional and provide for a limited license to the client/owner for use of the documents. That license is generally limited for use on the specific project only, and does not allow for transfer of that license to third parties. The design industry contracts also include an indemnity provision in the professional’s favor that mitigates risk should those documents be used or modified without proper authority. Most owner generated contracts, on the other hand, demand a transfer of copyright to the owner, and those terms are often agreed to by the professional, presumably because the professional is not fully aware of its rights or the risks involved in giving those rights away. Continue reading “Copyright Rights and Wrongs”

At a panel for the NC Bar Association Construction Law Winter Meeting, attorney Melissa Brumback and her colleagues discussed insurance issues for design professionals. One hot topic was the way architects and engineers can inadvertently invalidate their insurance by agreeing to overly broad contractual language. Frequently, this has to do with the standard of care. Melissa penned the following post for the NC Construction Law Blog, and we have reposted it here with her permission:

As most of you know, Errors & Omissions insurance (“E&O” coverage)  is meant to provide coverage for mistakes you may make in performing your professional architecture or engineering services. E&O coverage is important to protect you in the event of a lawsuit because, as you know, no set of plans is perfect (nor is perfection the standard of care).

Be careful, though. Do not promise to provide a higher standard of care than the “professional standard.”

If you are asked to sign a contract that states you will use your “professional best,” “best efforts”, “highest care” or similar, you are being asked to sign something that could cost you your E&O coverage.

Examples of such language:

[Architect] [Engineer] shall perform the Services in accordance with the highest standards of professional competence in the industry.

[Architect] [Engineer] shall exercise a high degree of care and diligence in providing the professional services.

[Architect’s] [Engineer’s] services shall be of first class quality and free from defects.

E&O policies cover you for failing to meet professional standards, but not in cases where you agree by contract to provide a higher/better/best standard. 

Explain the risks in such language to your owner clients.  No owner will want to put your insurance policy in jeopardy, and they should be willing to strike or modify that language to ensure that your work on the construction project is fully protected and covered by your E&O policy.

Some examples of coverable standards:

All services to be performed shall be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of Designer’s profession.

All services shall be performed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of Designer’s profession currently practicing in the location of the project for which the services are rendered, or similar locations.

Remember this, and make sure your future construction contracts contain favorable language that will actually be insurable.  You know–the whole reason you have professional liability insurance in the first place!

About the Author

Melissa Dewey Brumback, who blogs at www.constructionlawNC.com, is an attorney at Ragsdale Liggett in Raleigh, North Carolina, where she represents architects and engineers in risk avoidance, contract negotiation, and construction litigation.

Screenshot 2017-01-27 14.13.07Do architects owe a “duty of care” to the homeowners of a condominium project with whom the architects have no contractual privity?  According to the California Supreme Court, they do.  What does this mean in practical terms?  The answer is that architects are now more than ever exposed to potential future claims and lawsuits brought by homeowners and the homeowners’ associations years after the project has been completed even where the architect’s design decisions are trumped by those of the project developer, and the architect’s role in the construction phase of the project is limited.

The purpose of this paper is to provide background on an architect’s potential liability to its client and third parties on condominium projects as well as guidance on how to prospectively address the concerns highlighted by a recent California Supreme Court decision and many other lawsuits in which architects have been sued by third parties.  Specifically, we address the following topics: assessing your owner client, important contract provisions, and insurance issues.  The intent is to provide a roadmap for architects in assessing their risks on condominium projects and a practical approach to addressing those risks.  While it may not be possible to fully insulate architects from all risks, it is certainly a good practice to have a firm understanding of those risks and to address the risks up front.  Benjamin Franklin is attributed with the statement: “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”  For architects who design condominium projects, unfortunately, lawsuits should be added to that list. Continue reading “If You Build It, They Will Sue: Condominium Projects – Part I”

shutterstock_462881602

You have just learned that the other party to your contract has filed for bankruptcy. That party owes you money for past work and the project is not yet completed. This is a difficult and confusing situation that your firm might encounter.

In this Practice Note, attorney Jeremy W. Katz provides insight into the bankruptcy mechanism and the steps you might take to protect your firm’s interests.

A prime designer or lead contractor on a design/build project files bankruptcy. Can a design professional/consultant working under contract to the entity filing for bankruptcy protection pack up its gear and walk off the job site or stop work? Can the consultant enforce its mechanics’ lien rights against the real property’s owner? Can the consultant look to the bankrupt’s payment bond for payment? A bankruptcy filed by one party to a construction contract creates significant problems that put at risk the other party’s right to payment. When this happens, the non-debtor party to the construction contract should be ready to act.

The construction business is a volatile one, and it makes little difference if times are good or bad. Prime contractors, consultants, subcontractors, and property owners are constantly filing for bankruptcy protection. They can be huge companies, such as Washington Group, International, Enron, and PG&E, or they can be small mom-and-pop operations. But no matter how large or small the bankruptcy, creditors are likely to suffer, because rarely are they paid in full. All bankruptcies have a ripple effect; the goal is to keep the waves as small as possible. In order to best protect its interests, the creditor should have some knowledge of creditors’ rights and remedies. This knowledge allows the creditor to recognize, anticipate, and act upon issues that arise in a bankruptcy.

This article identifies some of the issues that arise when a bankruptcy is filed, as well as steps a design professional/consultant or subconsultant can take to protect its interests in the project contract. First, this article describes the bankruptcy process from a general standpoint. Second, it discusses specific issues related to the bankruptcy of owners and primes, whether they are design firms or contractors on a design build project. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive study of the topic, nor is it a substitute for a good bankruptcy lawyer. Its purpose is to allow a consultant to identify problems that may affect a construction contract when a bankruptcy is filed. This knowledge makes it more likely that the contractor will fare better than other creditors in the fight to be paid.

Download the full article–Construction Contracts and Bankruptcy: The Ultimate in “Value Engineering”–to continue reading the following sections:

  • How Bankruptcy Works – An Overview
  • Pending or Executory Contracts
  • Perfect Your Mechanics’ Lien Rights!
  • The Automatic Stay
  • Unauthorized or Preferential Transfers, or Having to Give Money Back to the Debtor

If you have further questions on construction contracts and bankruptcy, contact your local a/e ProNet broker. We’re here to help!

Chicago - a/e ProNet Fall Meeting Location
a/e ProNet meets in Chicago each autumn

This week, a/e ProNet’s membership will gather in Chicago for the annual fall meeting (September 28-30, 2016). It’s an opportunity for the members to exchange insights about the climate of the design industry, broadening each broker’s individual knowledge base.

Established in 1988, a/e ProNet represents a combined annual professional liability premium volume exceeding $300 million. For this reason, representatives from the top tier professional liability insurance providers are eager to present to the group.

What Happens at the Meeting?

A dozen insurance companies are scheduled to present this fall, including: Beazley, Victor O. Schinnerer, Liberty, Travelers and Arch. These presentations update the membership on regional and national insurance trends. Hearing about real life claims scenarios, legal precedents and new policy/endorsement offerings equips our members to do their jobs well. The underwriters are eager for feedback on their programs and changes. a/e ProNet’s members actively advocate for their own clients during this portion of the meeting.

Members will also attend a reception one evening at the Driehaus Museum, just off Chicago’s Miracle Mile. This exquisitely restored 19th century mansion is a must-visit for lovers of Gilded Age architecture and art. Representatives from major design industry organizations, like the AIA and NSPE, are also invited to attend.

To close the conference, Douglas J. Palandech, Esq. of Chicago law firm Foran Glennon will present on the Fiduciary Liability Exposure of Design Professionals. These presentations often turn into articles for one of ProNet’s publications. Don’t miss out! Follow us on Twitter and/or LinkedIn for updates.

PNN_1604Design professionals are often asked by their clients to sign contracts that include comprehensive—sometimes unreasonable—insurance requirements and indemnification terms.  These are usually drafted with the goal of protecting owners, clients, contractors, or other project participants.  But how does this work when the required coverages aren’t found in the commercial insurance marketplace?

Certificates of insurance (COIs)—which are also often requested in those professional service contracts—provide summaries or verification of current coverage, including policy effective dates, insurers, and certain policy limits.  A certificate gives a snapshot to the requestor (usually known as the certificate holder) for informational purposes.   It’s important to understand that in no way does a certificate endorse, amend, alter, or extend coverage; nor does it act as a contract.  Certificates are often provided using a set of industry standard forms produced by ACORD (formally known as the Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development), which indicate:

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS ON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE REPORTED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED BELOW.

Issuers of COIs generally strive to accurately reflect the insurance policies that are in effect, but those who are relying on the forms need to keep in mind that it’s virtually impossible to summarize an insurance policy of over a hundred pages in a form that contains a few boxes.  Adding to this, those who are issuing insurance certificates often struggle as they try to confirm in a COI that specific and detailed contractual requirements are—or aren’t—being met.

One common challenge is meeting a request that an insurer provide notice of a policy’s cancellation to the insured’s clients.  To do so, the insurer would need to track all such requirements for all insureds for the duration of each contractual requirement—which may even be unspecified.  With this in mind, ACORD made changes in 2010 to clarify that insurers’ notification duties are as defined in the insurance policy, not in the professional services contract.

Generally, courts agree that a certificate of insurance is not a contract.  One fundamental reason is that no consideration—or payment—is given by the certificate holder to the issuer.  However, there is a duty to make accurate representations within the confines of the overall system.  To consider this, we’ll review a few recent cases interpreting the obligations for COIs and their issuers. Continue reading “Certificates of Insurance: Why You Can’t Always Have It Your Way”

Inquiring Minds and the FMLA

family

Complying with the many provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a concern for even those well-versed in the Act. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified when the FMLA applies, and spelled out an affirmative duty of the employer to inquire and confirm if an employee wants to take FMLA leave if eligible.

What Is the FMLA and How Does It Apply?

The FMLA entitles some employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons. It applies to employers that are public agencies and to private employers with 50 or more employees who work at least 20 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year. An employee is eligible for FMLA leave if they:

  • Worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months;
  • Worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of their FMLA leave; and
  • Work at a location where at least 50 employees are employed or within 75 miles of that location.

An eligible employee has the right to take 12 work weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period. In general, the employee can take leave due to their own serious health condition; for the birth of a newborn child; to care for a newly-adopted child; or to care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health condition. This right means that if an employer terminates or otherwise retaliates against an employee for taking leave, it can result in a civil lawsuit or administrative proceeding against the employer for back pay, reinstatement, and other damages.

When a state provides greater protections than the federal FMLA standards, an employer must comply with state law as well. For example, the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) also covers same-sex domestic partners, and provides more privacy protections. Continue reading “Inquiring Minds and the FMLA”

PNN_1511In 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”