A Reasonable Contract

Risk Allocation is an important part of the contract negotiation process for Architects, Engineers, and other Design Consultants.

“In allocating risks by contract terms and conditions, the goal is to allocate the specific risks to the party with the best ability to manage them. Although a contract can assign ownership of risks to any party, there can be serious adverse consequences if a party assumes risks it can’t manage. A design firm, for example, isn’t in a position to manage site safety responsibilities that most appropriately belong to the construction contractor. Despite the practicalities, however, of who is actually in the best position to manage site safety, if the design firm agrees to such responsibility by contract, the designer may be found liable for site safety by courts and possibly the Department of Labor.

“To be reasonable, a contract must be reasonable for all parties involved. If a contract attempts to shift all the risks to one party or the other, it will create problems on the project. A one-sided contract is likely to cause hard feelings during contract administration. It may also increase the likelihood of claims turning into litigation. As a practical matter, this means parties are better served by negotiators who don’t try to negotiate a contract that unreasonably shifts risk to someone who can’t logically manage it or accept legal responsibility for it. Such risk transfer will cause problems in the long run, and may even create uninsurable losses and claims.

“In evaluating who the various risks should be assigned to, parties can develop a table or list of responsibilities and risks to more easily see which risks most logically belong to each party. For example, site safety typically falls to the construction contractor. Easements and rights-of-way, as well as site data, including geotechnical information, may logically be allocated to the project owner. Responsibility for exercising due care in the planning and designing of a project generally falls to the design professional performing those services.

“Problems begin when any of these risks are allocated to the party that is not technically responsible for the related services. Unless you are in a position to manage a particular risk, it is not appropriate for you to accept contractual liability for that risk.”

This is an excerpt from a/e ProNet’s Risk Management & Contract Review Guide for Design Professionals (© Copyright 2006; a/e ProNet & J. Kent Holland, Jr.), one of the many resources ProNet Member Broker’s provide to their clients. A digital version of the full guide is available for purchase ($19.99). Contact a/e ProNet today to get in touch with your local ProNet broker.

About the Author: J. Kent Holland is a construction lawyer located in Tysons Corner, Virginia,  (formerly with Wickwire Gavin, P.C. and now with Construction Risk Counsel, PLLC) representing design professionals, contractors and project owners. He is founder and president of a consulting firm, ConstructionRisk, LLC. He is also the author of Contract Concerns, a series of articles available on our website here.

Who doesn’t love a good Monty Python reference? With our latest ProNetwork Newsletter, Just a Rabbit? Small Projects Can Bite, we’ve proven that the classic moments in Monty Python and the Holy Grail can be made analogous to anything, even insurance. Or, more accurately in this case, to potential professional liability claims:

“King Arthur and his knights approach a cave known to be guarded by a ferocious beast.  Upon seeing that the beast is but a wee rabbit, they let down their guards, proceed forward and are savagely attacked.  Was the mistake having approached the cave at all or having done so without anticipation of the risk and use of appropriate protection?  I sometimes ask the same question of design professionals who undertake small fee projects and unhappily receive large claims. But it has always been true that little projects can generate big claims, particularly where we let informality replace careful practice and appropriate documentation.  In a troubled economy, a/e’s want to take the work and no responsible lawyer should tell you to minimize your risk by eliminating your work. Take the work but don’t skimp on process, procedures and gut feelings in contract negotiations and documentation, even if done less formally.

Just a Rabbit

“Like King Arthur’s knights, I have frequently heard that the project was just a rabbit, or just a slab on grade, or just a retaining wall, or just a room addition, or just a (fill in the blank).  Insurance statistics prove that smaller firms do not necessarily get smaller claims, nor do smaller projects necessarily generate only small claims.   A modest structural engineering engagement for balcony maintenance on a condominium building can bring in modest fees.  When one of the balconies collapses or defects become apparent in 350 identical units with 350 separate plaintiffs, the defense and repair costs can be astronomical.  The same can be true for a small church addition, with the church school remaining open during construction.

Just a Contract

“Aside from legalities, written contracts serve two important practical purposes.  First, before work begins, the contract serves as a discussion outline with which a client can be educated about what you do for a living, what they have to give you in order for you to do the work, what work you have in mind and, equally important, what work is not included. All of these topics are much more easily and less emotionally discussed before anyone has started working and before a problem has arisen.

“I frequently receive calls about contracts just as the a/e is finishing Construction Documents and realizes either that nothing has been paid to date or that a risky project is about to go out for bid. This is not ideal, but very common, and still better than having the discussion after CDs are out or a problem has arisen.  I also frequently receive calls after the contract is signed, work is proceeding and could I just take a quick look at the contract, because it is “just a room addition” or similar small project?  Once signed, there is little I can do but warn the a/e of the teeth on that rabbit.

“Contracts serve a second important purpose as well – to tell a third party (judge, jury, arbitrator, Grand Inquisitor) what the parties thought about the scope of services, risks, rewards and the deal before they got to court.  If you show up to court with a contract calling you “contractor,” saying that you will perform your services to the “highest, best” standards of care and that you intended to “ensure” a successful project, you will be hard pressed to proclaim otherwise, even if Mrs. Justaroomaddition was a little flaky and Mr. Justaroomaddition employed his brother-in-law to do some of the work.   You will also create insurance coverage problems for the claim, perhaps ending up with two lawyers and two lawsuits instead of one of each.  Use the same scrutiny of contract language for your small projects that you use for your large projects, because the same words can cause problems regardless of size of the work.”

Visit our website to continue reading this newsletter. You may download the full PDF version here.

ProNetwork News is the latest value-added resource produced by a/e ProNet. Each monthly edition includes an informative, timely article relevant to the design industry and authored by an industry expert. Contact your a/e ProNet broker for early access to these excellent newsletters.

About the Author: Eric Singer is a partner at Ice Miller, LLP. He concentrates his practice in construction law, with emphasis on the representation of architects, engineers, contractors, owners, and lenders as well as other professionals, in litigation and alternative dispute resolution of design and construction issues. Eric is an active speaker and prolific author on the subject of construction litigation and the liability of the design professional.

The following is an excerpt for the most recent ProNet Guest Essay by Frank L. Pohl, Esq. and James C. Washburn, Esq.:

“Frequently, general contractors will work with the same subcontractor or supplier on two separate, unrelated projects. When that happens, the situation may arise that on the first project (Project A), the subcontractor defaults on its contract, resulting in a back-charge that exceeds the subcontractor’s contract balance, i.e. the subcontractor owes the general contractor money. On the second project (Project B), the subcontractor satisfactorily completed its work and is due money from the general contractor. It may seem obvious that the general contractor would have a right of set-off, allowing the general contractor to deduct the amount due from the subcontractor on Project A from the amount that the general contractor otherwise owes the subcontractor on Project B. Seemingly, the general contractor should only have to pay the net difference or be able to avoid paying the subcontractor anything if the back-charge on Project A exceeds the amount due on Project B. However, as outlined in this article, that seemingly straight-forward right to “net out” the competing claims might not always be available.

“There are several different factors that can frustrate the general contractor’s right of set-off. In some jurisdictions, state statutes may prohibit the general contractor from withholding from the subcontractor the amounts received from the owner for the subcontractor’s work, such statutes holding that those funds are held in trust for the benefit of the subcontractor. Some states might even find the withholding of funds received by the owner for the subcontractor’s work to be statutorily criminal. On projects covered by a payment bond, courts in some jurisdictions have held that even if the general contractor has a contractual right to set-off, the Surety may not. As a result, in those jurisdictions, notwithstanding the contractor’s contractual right of set-off, the subcontractor may be entitled to recover the full amount on Project B (from our scenario above) from the Surety without any deduction of the amounts the subcontractor owes on Project A. Given that the general contractor must almost always indemnify the Surety, such a result has the practical effect of eliminating the contractual benefit of a right of set-off. Additionally, in certain circumstances, by the discretion afforded to judges under the rules of civil procedure, courts have required the two competing claims to be handled by separate lawsuits independently and without regard to the general contractor’s claim of set-off. This article discusses these scenarios and others that impact the right of set-off.”

To continue reading, download a the full PDF version of this article at our website.

About the Authors:

Frank L. Pohl, Esq. and James C. Washburn, Esq. are partners in the law firm of Pohl & Short, P.A. in Winter Park, Florida.  Pohl & Short, P.A. is a business boutique law firm concentrating in four main areas of business law: commercial litigation, real estate law, corporate law and trusts and estates.  Mr. Pohl has been advising clients involved in all aspects of real estate development for over 30 years.  Mr. Washburn practices construction law and is Board Certified in Construction Law by The Florida Bar.

This article is intended for general discussion of the subject, and should not be mistaken for legal advice. Readers are cautioned to consult appropriate advisors for advice applicable to their individual circumstances.

Other than Professional Liability claims, Auto Liability claims are the largest exposure faced by Architecture and Engineering firms.

If your design firm is small to mid-sized, often “a standard BOP (Business Owner’s Policy) is sufficient to meet your property and casualty coverage needs. A BOP combines the basic coverage requirements a small to medium sized business owner would need in a package.” Those insurance companies that understand the specialized needs of design firms sometimes combine certain coverage enhancements within their standard BOP. These enhancements can include extended coverage for architectural models, a waiver of subrogation (as is often required by project Owners during contract negotiations), and even some limited Auto Liabilty coverage.

“If your firm does not own any autos, the BOP can usually include ‘Hired and Non-Owned’ auto liability coverage. This would pay for damages to a third party, on behalf of your company, if an employee causes an accident while using a rented car or the employee’s own car while on company business. This addresses liability to others, but what about damage to the rented car? Some but not all insurers will provide this protection in a BOP; it’s usually referred to as Hired Physical Damage coverage.”

Our latest ProNetwork Newsletter, Your Company’s Auto Liability – What’s Covered? What’s Not?, focuses on the necessity of this coverage. A coverage which, if both architect/engineer and broker aren’t careful, can be overlooked at renewal time.

What does Hired Physical Damage cover? And why/when would you need this coverage?

Your star employees requests permission to attend a conference hosted by your state professional society. The conference is about 200 miles away. Public transportation isn’t an option; therefore, with an eye toward keeping expenses down, your employee decides to rent a car to drive to and from the event in one day. He asks you about taking out the rental car company’s insurance coverage. You mean to call your insurance broker, but, pressed for time, you decide that the BOP must cover this and you know that the extra insurance from the rental company would cost anywhere between $15 and $50 for the day.

Tragically, on the way home, your employee swerves to avoid some large debris in the roadway and inadvertently hits an oncoming car with a young adult driver and three co-workers who were headed home from a client’s golf outing. No one is killed, and fortunately your employee walks away unharmed. The other four, however, are not as lucky. All four are hospitalized, miss time from work, and require significant rehabilitation. Both vehicles suffer total loss.

To read about the outcome of this “doomsday scenario,” and to understand how Hired Physical Damage coverage can help, download the full PDF version of our newsletter here.

ProNetwork News is the latest value-added resource produced by a/e ProNet. Each monthly edition includes an informative, timely article relevant to the design industry and authored by an industry expert. Contact your a/e ProNet broker for early access to these excellent newsletters.

About the Author: Barbara Sable is Assistant Vice President for RLI’s Professional Services Group. She is responsible for developing the content of RLI’s risk management programs and addressing the day-to-day needs of policyholders. RLI is an a/e ProNet Platinum Sponsor.

So, your architecture firm is preparing to sign a contract on a new project. You’ve reviewed the wording with your insurance broker and attorney. You feel good about the language, the limitation of liability, and the scope of services outlined therein. (And you feel even better about the fees you’ll be collecting along the way!) But before you scribble your name on the dotted line, it is important to remember that the black and white words in the contract only go so far.

The signed contract is only the first (if the most major) verifiable communication between the interested parties: Architect and Owner. As the project progresses, you’ll be communicating with the owner many more times, not only for changes and modifications to the design, but depending on the scope of your responsibility when you visit the job site, you may be keeping the owner apprised of progress. More importantly, you may be alerting the owner to problems!

Stepping outside your scope when it comes to construction administration is a risk and may leave your firm vulnerable to claims. Likewise, dealing directly with contractors without remembering your relationship to the owner (“the law will treat the architect as the owner’s agent”) is also risky. In his newsletter titled Construction Administration Liability Risk Avoidance, William L. Coggshall of Archer Norris covers some of the steps an architect can take to manage these risks.

The following is an excerpt of the aforementioned newsletter published in February of 2010. For access to the full-length PDF version of this newsletter, please visit our website.

Professional liability claims against architects generally fall into two different categories. The first type of claim is errors or omissions in the architect’s design drawings and/or specifications. The second type of claim is that the architect failed to properly perform its construction administration services pursuant to the generally accepted standard of care in the industry. Of course, there are instances where both types of claims are alleged.

The new AIA Standard Form Agreement between Owner and Architect (B101-207) describes construction administration services as ‘Construction Phase Services.’ An understanding of the nuances of these services and how claimants view the role of the architect is a key to educate architects (also applies to engineers and land surveyors) and to better equip them to avoid professional liability claims.

While the term ‘construction administration services/construction phase services’ encompasses a variety of services by the architect (i.e. evaluations of work, certificates for payment, submittals, changes in work, and project completion), the focus of this article will be on the architect’s construction observation services (described in the AIA documents as ‘Evaluations of the Work’). The intent is to give the architect an understanding of how to effectively handle their construction administration site observations in such a manner in order to help protect the professional from construction administration services liability claims, or at a minimum, to have the appropriate factual defenses to such a claim should a claim be made by the project owner.

The three pillars of properly executing the design professional’s construction administration site observation services can be summed up as the ‘Three C’s’ – Control, Competence, and Communication.

Access the full-length PDF version of the newsletter here.

About the Author: William L. Coggshall is a litigator with the Archer Norris professional liability and construction practice groups, specializing in the representation of architects and engineers in complex commercial litigation. The lawyers in our Design Professionals Liability practice group provide advice and litigation support to architects, engineers and other design professionals. 

Newsletter provided by a/e ProNet Member Melissa Roberts of Euclid Insurance Agencies.

This article is intended to provide Archer Norris clients and contacts with general information. The content of this publication is for informational purposes only. Neither this publication nor its authors are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters. No attorney-client relationship is created by this advisory, nor by any response to the information herein, unless and until a conflicts review has been conducted by Archer Norris, and a written agreement containing all terms of representation has been signed.
Copyright © 2010, Archer Norris, PLC.
All rights reserved. Archer Norris grants its clients and contacts permission to forward this publication to third parties in its entirety and without alteration or modification. You may also reproduce this material for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice. Please do not replicate, or post on your website, without our express written permission. Any rights not granted in this disclaimer are expressly reserved. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.