Newsletter Archives - Page 2 of 7

The Keys to Keeping a Project on Track

By Lynda

In 1985, after five years prosecuting criminals as an assistant US attorney, I became deputy general counsel of The American Institute of Architects. On my very first day, I was introduced to civil law. In his gravelly voice, the general counsel explained to me that the key to success in my new position was to “think liability”. I understood, as the traditional casebooks teach in law school, that appellate decisions in commercial cases tend to focus on determining where something went wrong and deciding who should be blamed. Liability was the proverbial ‘hot potato’, something to be avoided at all cost. As a result, lawyers teach and are trained to concentrate on anticipating potential liability and finding ways to avoid or transfer it so their clients are not caught in its web. The general counsel wanted me to think the same.

There are big downsides to lawyers defining “success” as drafting a contract intent on anticipating potential failures and pushing responsibility to other parties with the least bargaining power. Project problems require a nimbleness that can be lost if contract structures are excessively rigid. The industry as a whole also incurs huge costs from procedural requirements that needlessly force parties to jump through time-consuming hoops before an issue can be resolved. This kind of “success” hurts and ultimately impairs the competitiveness of the U.S. construction market.

The better a contract party has allocated project risk away from itself, the more it may also have created disincentives for other parties to collaborate, prevent problems and, when they occur, find solutions. It can also hurt the party who has used market power to divest itself of risk. Self-serving narcissism has never built either the trust or the chemistry necessary for group effort to succeed or for firms to get hired. It can also hurt the legal profession: Too many in the business world already think the best way to lose a deal is to bring in a lawyer to draft a contract. And these problems are all easily avoidable and totally unnecessary. Continue reading “The Keys to Keeping a Project on Track”

To Report or Not To Report? A Potential Claims Question…

By Lynda

Before a design professional decides whether or not to report a professional liability claim, or circumstance out of which a claim might arise, he or she must understand the definition of a claim, circumstance and what is required of them under their policy. The pros and cons of reporting or not reporting a claim are more fully explored in this Practice Notes.

Why Firms Neglect to Report Claims

From an insurance provider’s point of view, it seems that design firms faced with a claim (or a potential claim) too often come close to jeopardizing their professional liability insurance (PLI) coverage. Many firms resist calling their insurance provider to report the matter or ask for advice. Their reasons tend to fall within one of four categories:

Ignorance. They do not realize what their policy requires of them when they are presented with a claim or possible claim.

Fear. They fear the black mark on their claim history more than they fear the claimant.

Denial. They believe that ignoring the problem will produce the best result.

Resolve. They have read their policies, understand the risks, embraced that the issue exists andafter this careful analysis, choose not to report.

Know Your Terminology

Claims

It is critical that insurance policyholders understand their duties, responsibilities, and benefits under their PLI contract. One of the duties is to report all claims promptly.

What defines a claim? Most policies refer to it as a “demand for money or services.” So the telephone call from the angry client asking you to pay for damages they believe they have suffered as a result of your professional services would rise to the definition of “claim” under most policies.

Why is this definition important? Remember, you must report claims promptly. Failure to meet your obligations under the insurance policy may jeopardize your coverage.

Possible claims

It is important to know how your insurance policy defines a “claim” versus a “possible claim.” Possible claims typically do not rise to the definition of “claim” but could become one. Policies generally define possible claims as “a circumstance from which you reasonably expect that a claim could be made.”

Are you required to report these instances to your insurance company? Maybe. Most policies read, “if you report a circumstance,” but some state, “you must give written notice.” The circumstance provision in most policies goes on to say that if you follow the reporting requirements, “then any claim that may subsequently be made against you arising out of such circumstance shall be deemed to have been made on the date the insurance company received written notice of the circumstance.”

With some policy forms, firms have a fair amount of discretion on whether to report a “circumstance,” unlike the requirement that you promptly report all claims. Keep in mind that most PLI policies for design firms are claims-made, which means that insurance cove rage is not retroactive to an unreported occurrence. Continue reading “To Report or Not To Report? A Potential Claims Question…”

California Supreme Court Rules Against California’s Architects in the Beacon v. Skidmore Owings Case

By Lynda

The closely watched California Supreme Court case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore Owings and Merrill et. al. has been decided, and the opinion is bad news for California Architects. The Court held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of residential buildings where the architect is a principal architect on the project, meaning that the architect is not a subordinate to other design professionals.

Case background and procedural history

As a refresher, this case involved the design and construction of residential units in the Bay Area of California. Originally held as apartments, the units were converted by one of the developers into condominium units. After completion, the condominium association filed a lawsuit against the original developers, contractors, and designers alleging a long list of construction and design defects. Among the issues was a complaint that the individual units did not include air conditioning and that the quality of the windows used was so deficient that the individual units experienced excessive heat gain, making them unlivable.

Skidmore Owings and Merrill (“SOM”) and HKS, Inc. (“HKS”) were the architects for the project. In reliance on past case law in California, SOM and HKS filed a motion in the trial court arguing that they did not owe any duty of care to the condominium association because neither SOM nor HKS had contracted with that entity. The trial court granted that motion. The intermediate appellate court reversed that ruling, holding that under other California law, SOM and HKS in fact did owe a duty to subsequent owners who were foreseeable even though SOM or HKS did not contract with them. This created an arguable conflict between cases, and thus the California Supreme Court accepted the case for resolution.

Our firm was privileged to file an amicus brief on behalf of the American Institute of Architects and the American Institute of Architects, California Council, arguing that architects should not be held to owe a duty to downstream owners with whom the architect did not contract. Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rules Against California’s Architects in the Beacon v. Skidmore Owings Case”

Construction Phase Services: Considerations for a Successful Outcome

By Lynda

The construction phase is a dynamic time of a project and a design professional’s involvement is significant from a risk management perspective since it allows the design professional the opportunity to provide input during the construction of the project. Since no designs are perfect (and, moreover, are not expected to be perfect to still meet the standard of professional skill and care), all designs require some level of interpretation that is best done by the design professional who created them. During construction, the design professional can visit the jobsite to determine if construction is proceeding in general accordance with the plans and specifications and clarify the design intent when necessary. This article addresses issues design professionals should consider if they provide services during this phase.

Do you have the resources?

The firm must have sufficient staff to devote to this important phase of the project. The services during this phase require experienced professionals who know how to handle themselves on the jobsite and how to successfully complete tasks in the office. If junior professionals perform construction phase services, the firm must ensure senior professionals are available to (and actually do) mentor the junior staff. A successful mentoring program requires regular and meaningful communication between junior and senior staff who need to be proactive to nurture the mentoring relationship. Mentoring is a two-way street: it will not be effective if busy senior professionals do not devote time to advance junior professionals’ development and junior staff must take the initiative to seek out senior staff for guidance.

What does your contract say?

Industry standard documents have relatively balanced language regarding the construction phase. However, design professionals are often faced with a client-

proposed document that may not include appropriate language for the design professional’s involvement in the construction phase. Continue reading “Construction Phase Services: Considerations for a Successful Outcome”

The Design Professional in the Age of BIM: Things that change; things that don’t.

By Lynda

Seen any changes the past thirty years in the delivery of professional design services? Sure, you have—particularly in the area of construction documents. Raised stools and drafting tables, pounce, and lead-darkened calluses on the middle finger of the draftsmen have, for the most part, yielded to CAD. Although CAD’s promise of error-free drawing may have proven elusive, many of its other promises have been fulfilled. Some even appear understated in hindsight—in part because CAD and the Internet seem to have been made for each other. Their combined effect reduces trying to list all the ways CAD has changed project delivery to a futile exercise.

Like CAD in the ‘80’s, BIM seems to hold similar promise today—a fact not lost on contractors, A/E’s, and project owners alike. Digital models are more-and-more often offered or requested as “deliverables.” And multiple models for the same project are not uncommon—as building team participants explore their usefulness at various stages of design and construction. Some models are used much like enhanced CAD construction documents, provided and controlled largely by the A/E. But many incorporate data contributed by sources other than licensed design professionals, including suppliers, fabricators, contractors, and subs. Not surprisingly, many contractors and construction managers view BIM as a means for carving out an increased share of the project delivery pie—and are taking full advantage of it as both a marketing and performance tool. Some of them have even become the primary creators and custodians of digital models. Of course, that is not altogether unnatural. After all, it’s hard to ignore a tool that can show what will be built—and also to be useful in actually building it. Continue reading “The Design Professional in the Age of BIM: Things that change; things that don’t.”

Stirring the Pot: Workplace Drug Policy Implementation in the Era of Legalized Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana

By Lynda

Two states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana within the last year, and it feels like the trend will continue to unfold, too. How does the state-level legalization of a federally-restricted of a narcotic impact workplace drug policy? Our April 2014 Guest Essay, authored by Stephanie Rawitt of Clark Hill, seeks to answer this very question for you. The following is an excerpt of that essay. You can download the full PDF of the newsletter for free from our website.

In a wave of change that children of the 1960s only dreamed, debated and theorized about, almost half of the states in the United States have now passed laws legalizing the controlled distribution of medicinal marijuana, and two states have even legalized the sale of recreational marijuana. While this could truly be the “Dawning of the Age of Aquarius” straight out of the Broadway musical Hair, these new laws raise a variety of questions for employers who have drug screening programs or any type of drug-free workplace policy. The big question for employers is – are their drug-free workplace policies still enforceable? More specifically, what happens when an employee or job applicant with a prescription for medical marijuana fails a drug test? Will employers who discipline employees using medical marijuana who fail drug tests face liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act or their respective state anti-discrimination laws? While in one sense, there are easy answers to the questions raised by the states’ legalization of marijuana, there are many grey areas which require employers to understand their state and local laws and also to pay attention to the landscape of this evolving issue.

For the most part, courts have been affirming an employer’s right to enforce its drug-free workplace policies. Despite the increasing rise of the states’ respective medical marijuana laws and the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington, marijuana possession and use is still illegal under federal law. The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug, which means that it has a strong potential for abuse and is not currently recognized by the federal government as an acceptable medication. See, 21 U.S.C. §§811-812. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the possession of marijuana is illegal under the CSA regardless of whether a state allows the use of medical marijuana. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Plainly, with reference to this issue, federal law will pre-empt state law where there is a conflict between the two.

Given that marijuana use and possession are illegal under federal law, employers that have federal contracts or are subject to federal drug-free workplace regulations should not need to change or modify their existing policies. These employers should continue to comply with applicable federal law, even if they are located in a state where marijuana has been legalized for medicinal or recreational use. Continue reading “Stirring the Pot: Workplace Drug Policy Implementation in the Era of Legalized Medicinal and Recreational Marijuana”

Waiver of Subrogation: A Valid Defense for Architects and Engineers?

By Lynda

An attorney is asked to defend an architect in a claim for defective design of a geothermal HVAC system, which allegedly caused an explosion and several million dollars of property damage to an owner’s manufacturing facility. He reviews the file, making notes. The plaintiff is the owner’s casualty insurer, which has paid the claim and sued the general contractor in subrogation. It’s actually the general contractor who has named the architect as a third-party defendant, seeking contribution and indemnity. All sorts of interesting defenses present themselves: statute of repose (work was completed years ago), no common law indemnity claim, no negligence…but what about the contracts for the original project?

Contained within the AIA A201 General Conditions is a boiler plate “waiver of subrogation” clause. It appears to bar subrogation claims for damages covered by insurance on the property. The owner’s carrier picked up the tab, so how can it sue in subrogation now? Are these waivers of subrogation provisions enforceable?

Since the project is in North Carolina, our inquiry starts with a 1987 North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Freeman-White Associates, Inc. The case involves an architect who performed design services for a Charlotte, North Carolina hospital. During construction, a wing of the hospital collapsed, causing significant property damage. The hospital’s insurer paid the claim under an “all risk” policy and then sued the architect in subrogation. The agreements between the parties to the construction incorporated the AIA A201 General Conditions, including its standard waiver of subrogation clause, and the clause was applied by the trial court to dismiss the complaint against the architect under Rule 12(b)6. Unfortunately, on appeal, the court of appeals declined to enforce the waiver of subrogation provision and reversed the trial court’s dismissal.

The rationale? The appeals court held that because the contract required the architect to provide coverage for its own errors and omissions, the contract was susceptible to two interpretations: 1) the true intent of the contracting parties was that the owner would waive all claims for damages against which the owner had insured itself; or 2) the contracting parties intended for the architect to insure against its own negligence in order to negate the waiver as to losses caused by the architect’s negligence.

Not a great result for the client. However, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Freeman-White Associates, Inc. is a 1987 decision. Surely there has been some better law made since then…

Waiver of Subrogation in General in Construction Contracts

“Subrogation is the substitution of [one person or entity] to the position of another, an obligee, whose claim he has satisfied…” Thus, in the insurance context, the doctrine of subrogation allows an insurer who has indemnifed its insured to step into the shoes of its insured and sue any at-fault party which may have caused the damages. The right of subrogation may arise by equitable, common law principles, or by virtue of any express assignment in the insuring agreement. The policies underlying subrogation are appealing: 1) it feels “fair” that the ultimate liability for a loss should land on the wrongdoer, not an insured’s insurer; 2) in theory, subrogation should keep insurance premiums down; and 3) parties remain incentivized to avoid mistakes. In addition, fault-based claims in the midst of construction can cause delays and increased hostility during the project. Costly litigation would ensue, the avoidance of which was one of the purposes for which the property insurance was originally obtained. Continue reading “Waiver of Subrogation: A Valid Defense for Architects and Engineers?”

Review of the Owner/Design Professional Agreement from The Design Professional’s Perspective

By Lynda

This article reviews some of the issues addressed in a standard Owner/Design Professional Agreement, outlines concerns from the Design Professional’s perspective, and discusses how the Design Professional can reduce liability on a project and ensure equitable adjustments to the contract price and schedule for changed or additional design services. The agreement contemplated by this article is one to be used as part of a traditional design-bid-build approach.

Standard of Care

When trying to hold a Design Professional liable for negligence, one of the first legal considerations is the standard of care owed. Absent an express contractual warranty, the law does not require the Design Professional to guarantee that the design will be perfect. Rather, the standard of care that the courts will typically apply is that degree of care which a reasonably careful architect/ engineer would use under like circumstances. However, nothing prevents an Owner from seeking contractual language that increases the typical standard of care owed by the Design Professional to the level of an express warranty of the design; in fact, Owners frequently attempt to do so in their proposed agreements – and courts will enforce such language. This is a danger to the Design Professional, as it is possible that the increased standard of care could go beyond professional liability insurance coverage available to the Design Professional. Thus, the Design Professional should insist on the deletion of any such guarantee as unreasonable.

Similarly, a Design Professional should insist on the deletion of any proposed language that attempts to establish a fiduciary duty between the Design Professional and the Owner, as such language also results in an increased standard of care owed on the Project. Continue reading “Review of the Owner/Design Professional Agreement from The Design Professional’s Perspective”

ProNet Practice Notes: Is BIM right for you and your project?

By Lynda

Embracing the latest technology can set a design firm apart from the crowd, but it can also set you up for a rough road if you’re not adequately prepared beforehand. Building Information Modeling (BIM) is far from “new” at this point, but some wary design professionals have abstained from it anyway, allowing time to tell whether BIM would be a positive thing for the industry, overall. Good news!

“Building Information Modeling (BIM)… [has] not necessarily opened the door to more claims, as several carriers expected. A few [insurance companies] have found BIM projects to be low-risk; some even went as far as giving discounts to design clients that utilize BIM.” — Engineering, Inc., February 2014

a/e ProNet’s latest ProNet Practice Note, authored by Joseph Barra of Robinson & Cole, can take you from here. The following is an excerpt from Building Information Modeling (BIM): Now that you know how to spell BIM, is it right for you and your firm?

Building Information Modeling (BIM) is the process of developing a virtual, three-dimensional, information rich model to design, construct, and maintain a building project. BIM is much more than software used to produce a pretty 3D graphic. Because a variety of information can be embedded into the model, BIM can also be used to manage the project’s construction schedule (4D); to track project costs (5D); and, once constructed, facility management (6D).

There are varying levels of BIM adoption and use, from an initial pilot project with one player using BIM tools to a team process with agreed-upon collaborative BIM process goals. In ideal process, all project participants share information.

These times are a changin’…

Because BIM is about process and not just software, it gives designers and constructors a unique opportunity to eliminate the barriers to collaborative thinking. One example is found in the redundancies inherent in the shop-drawing process. In this case, the goal of the BIM process is to abolish the wasteful practice of having to draw the entire project twice. Because BIM facilitates teamwork, many see BIM as an opportunity to reach out across disciplines and reconsider the traditional paradigm. Make no mistake, we still need experienced architects, engineers, contractors, and owners to deliver a successful project. But in today’s BIM-enabled world, the process is becoming more collaborative, which in turn redefines the project team’s risk profile.

To continue reading, download the full PDF version of this newsletter, which outlines Factors to Consider before deciding to use BIM (e.g., Type of Project, Timing, Teammates, Project Delivery Method). And if you have additional questions about BIM and/or professional liability insurance, be sure to contact your local a/e ProNet broker today!