Newsletter Archives - Page 3 of 7

An Unfair Duty to Defend

By Lynda

No engineering project is without risk. Somewhere between the goal of designing the best bridge, building or water treatment facility and running a profitable business lurks the ever-present possibility of litigation. A legitimate disagreement can occur, a company can make a mistake, or a firm or government entity—or a member of the public—can file a lawsuit that forces the firm to defend itself and its work. “A lot of risks exist and they’re not necessarily related to the quality of the work performed,” says John Moossazadeh, a senior vice president at Kleinfelder in San Diego.

Engineering firms often take jobs that knowingly expose the firm to legal risk. But how much risk is too much?

That’s a question that more and more engineering and design firms are asking when confronted with contracts that contain controversial “Duty to Defend” language.

A contractual Duty to Defend provides that the engineering firm will pay for attorney’s fees and costs incurred in a client’s defense of a claim. Depending on the con-tract language and the governing jurisdiction, this duty may be immediate from the time the claim is made, and may exist regardless of whether the engineer is found to be negligent. Although basic indemnification and defense clauses are common, and they typically assign risk to the negligent party, a growing number of developers and agencies request—and, in some cases, demand—that the consultant or firm in charge of the project defend any suit or other legal action brought against the developer or owner, and sometimes even irrespective of whether the claim is related to the engineer’s services.

Duty to Defend provisions are therefore criticized because a consultant or engineer who signs such an agreement could be legally required to bear the cost of defending against any project-related claim, even when the claim has nothing to do with the services performed by the firm, and there’s zero evidence of negligence. “It forces engineers to take responsibility for far more than the work they’re being paid to do and what their insurance covers,” explains P. Douglas Folk, principal at Folk & Associates in Phoenix. Continue reading “An Unfair Duty to Defend”

Insurance 102: Property Coverages for Architects & Engineers

By Lynda

This issue of ProNetwork News is meant to serve as a basic reference guide to the property insurance coverages typically purchased by design firms. Last month we posted a companion piece, Insurance 101: The Things You Always Wanted to Know About Liability Coverage But Were Afraid to Ask.

We continue our overview of insurance products of interest to design professionals with this review of property coverages that may apply to the needs of your particular practice. As always, we encourage you to ask your broker what insurance is right for you.

BUSINESS PROPERTY INSURANCE

Whether you lease or own your office, you need to insure office equipment, furniture, fixtures, computer equipment, phone systems, fax/copiers, valuable papers and fine arts for fire, theft and water damage. Insuring these valuables for “replacement cost” on an “all-risk form” means that your business is most likely to be reimbursed properly for a covered loss. If you lease furniture and equipment, the lessor will require this coverage and will be designated as a “loss payee.” Landlords of rented property usually require their tenants to maintain property coverage for the rented space to cover improvements and betterments provided to the leaseholder.

Since most design firms are heavily dependent on computer systems, it is important to properly inventory equipment and software.. For example, the cost to reproduce plans and specifications kept on computer files is significant when considering the insured value of valuable papers and records. However, no limit of insurance is a substitute for reliable backup procedures.

Stand-alone IT coverage packages, including security breach, are evolving almost daily. They can cover both first party losses (yours) and third-party losses (those for which you may be liable to others). Ask your broker what products may best apply to your needs.

VALUABLE PAPERS INSURANCE

A/E firms have in their possession valuable papers and documents whose destruction would prove very costly. Maps, plans, specifications and books are some examples. All-risk protection is generally available excluding wear and tear, gradual deterioration and vermin. Certain valuable papers may be insured specifically, or “scheduled.” More commonly, a blanket limit is established to cover all valuable papers. Articles insured on a blanket basis are covered for their replacement cost. Scheduled items are covered on a valued basis even though it is not possible to replace them with like kind and quality. Continue reading “Insurance 102: Property Coverages for Architects & Engineers”

Insurance 101: The Things You Always Wanted to Know About Liability Coverage But Were Afraid to Ask

By Lynda

This issue of ProNetwork News is meant to serve as a basic reference guide to the liability insurance coverages typically purchased by design firms.

Let’s start with a key definition.

CLAIMS-MADE vs. OCCURRENCE

Most liability policies are written on an Occurrence policy form. Coverage is triggered on the date of the “occurrence” (defined as an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions, causing damage). A claim asserted against the insured may be brought well after the occurrence.

In contrast, professional liability claims are often brought many years after an alleged act, error or omission. Insurance companies had to evaluate their exposures and better determine the premium necessary to cover such risk, so the Claims-Made policy form was created. The coverage trigger is the date the claim is made, and coverage applies only to alleged wrongful acts that happened after the retroactive date of your policy. Once the policy is canceled or not renewed, all coverage will cease.

Today, virtually all professional liability policies are provided on Claims-Made forms. In order to establish coverage, three conditions must be met:

a policy must be in place at the time a claim is made
the “retroactive” or “prior acts” date on the policy must be dated at least as far back as the services giving rise to the claim were provided
notice must be provided to the insurer within the policy term or during a specified grace period

The advice of your insurance advisor is essential when reviewing Claims-Made policies with respect to mergers, acquisitions, splits and retirement.

This has been an excerpt of the May 2013 issue of ProNetwork News. The newsletter goes on to deal with all types of liability coverage, including Professional Liability Insurance, Commercial General Liability Insurance, Owners and Contractors Protective Liability Insurance, Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance, Umbrella Liability Insurance, Employment Practices Liability Insurance, Directors and Officers Liability Insurance, and many more! Download the full PDF version of the newsletter here. Continue reading “Insurance 101: The Things You Always Wanted to Know About Liability Coverage But Were Afraid to Ask”

A New A&E Resource: Beazley Pro Inaugural Issue

By Lynda

One of the several excellent insurance companies a/e ProNet works with has a new risk management resource for their professional clients: Beazley Pro.

We think our readers will be most interested in the Claims Corner; three scenarios, three discussions, three lessons learned. An example of a claim outlined in the Summer 2013 issue…

Engineer granted rare summary judgement

Facts: After sustaining serious injuries in a fall in a sports facility parking lot, the plaintiff sued the property owner, who in turn filed a third-party action against our insured, an engineer. This suit against the engineer alleged that deficiencies and code violations in his design of the facility’s parking lot (specifically its handicap access ramp and lighting) were to blame for the fall. A site visit revealed that the lighting and lighting tower location in the parking lot were not as the engineer had specified. During deposition, the paving contractor affirmed that he used the engineer’s plan for pricing only, not for construction. Hence, there was no causal connection between any design deficiencies in the engineer’s plans and the plaintiff’s serious fall and injuries. Counsel moved for summary judgment, which was granted in full. Continue reading “A New A&E Resource: Beazley Pro Inaugural Issue”

a/e ProNet Partners with the Society for Design Administration (SDA)

By Lynda

In May this year, the Society for Design Administration (SDA), the nation’s largest professional organization for architectural and engineering design firm administrators and managers, announced its endorsement of a/e ProNet.

The proper management of professional risk factors such as contract administration, project administration, and document management are known factors in reducing professional risk in a/e firms. Both SDA and a/e ProNet are dedicated to providing a/e firms the necessary tools to better manage risk and improve firm management. ~ Deborah A Gill, CPA, CGMA, CDFA, 2013 SDA President

As announced in the June/July 2013 issue of SDA Today, “a/e ProNet will pay one half of a new SDA member’s dues if that member’s insurance agent belongs to a/e ProNet… Chapters can partner with the local broker and reach out to principals and managers in their network.”

a/e ProNet and the SDA will also collaborate on a number of educational events, including the SDA’s annual EDSymposium conference. Last year, past a/e ProNet President, Leslie Pancoast, made two presentations at EDSymposium12 in Portland, Oregon, and current a/e ProNet President Jeff Todd spoke at EDSymposium13 in Williamsburg, Virginia earlier this year.

We look forward to a long and successful partnership with the SDA.

Making the Grade: Testing Design Professional Indemnity Obligations

By Lynda

In•dem•ni•fy Verb.

• Compensate (someone) for harm or loss.
• Secure (someone) against legal responsibility for their actions.

Imagine a case where an engineering firm was found to have had an expensive duty to defend claims asserted against a developer, even after the engineer’s performance was judged not to have violated the professional standard of care. That was the decision three years ago, in the California Court of Appeals in UDC – Universal Development L.P. v. CH2M Hill. In fact, that case extended another one, decided two years earlier in the California State Supreme Court. (Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc.). That decision held that the duty to defend was incurred the moment that the indemnitee (the party that the design firm was contractually bound to indemnify) tendered its defense to the design firm.

Candidly, the indemnity provision underlying the UDC v. CH2M Hill decision was long and rambling, repetitive, and ambiguous. That’s what opened the door to the expansive (and expensive) legal interpretation. The clear message to design professionals was: if you do not want to take on the extensive defense and indemnity obligations implied or required by statute and case law, you must be clear. Further, the longer and more confusing an indemnity provision is, the more likely it is to receive an expansive reading.

The point of this article is to provide design professionals with a simple, three-step evaluation and corresponding “scoring” model to evaluate and improve the indemnity obligations it receives. Continue reading “Making the Grade: Testing Design Professional Indemnity Obligations”

How to Get a Design Professional to Work For Free!

By Lynda

Now that we have grabbed your undivided attention, the purpose of this article is to alert Design Professionals to an alarming trend. This trend involves the inclusion of contract provisions in agreements prepared by Owners/Developers and their attorneys that force a Design Professional to work for free in the event that the Owner/Developer unilaterally determines that there is a “dispute.”

Overview

It goes without saying that every contract, especially in the design field, must be read thoroughly before it is signed, or the signer will be stuck with the ramifications. Generally speaking, the clauses in question here state that in the event of any dispute between the Owner/Developer and Design Professional, the Owner/Developer may withhold payment until the dispute is resolved, but the Design Professional must continue to perform services. This upsets the historical balance of power between the Owner/Developer and the Design Professional and creates a situation where the Design Professional may very well end up working for free or else be faced with being sued if they stop work or suspend services. Continue reading “How to Get a Design Professional to Work For Free!”

Project Insurance: Benefits and Cautions – Part 2 of 2

By Lynda

The March 2013 issue of ProNetwork News is the second installment of a two-part article; the author, Tim Corbett of SmartRisk explains the origins and principles of project coverage and introduces the reader to two of the four main types of Project Insurance. For a recap of the first part, including details about types 1 (Project Professional Liability Insurance) and 2 (IPD Project Specific Insurance), download the full March issue, or, better yet, download the February 2013 newsletter here.

Now, let’s examine the remaining three types of project coverage.

3. Project Specific Insurance Limits

Sometimes, contracts demand that design professionals carry a higher limit than they usually do. This can occur on any kind of project, but is more common on larger, higher risk projects, and more recently, on public ones. One of the more common strategies for obtaining increased limits for a project is through a Project Specific Insurance Limit. This is provided by endorsement through your current practice policy insurance carrier.

Benefits and typical features of Project Specific Insurance Limits:

Provides a higher limit for the firm, for a specific project only.
Can be more cost effective than raising the limits on the entire practice policy.
Makes the cost of the project-specific limit a reimbursable expense.

Cautionary Points and Tactics:

Having a project specific increased limit may not always be the best strategy, and it may not even be available from your practice policy carrier. From an insurance company’s perspective, comparing construction costs to policy limits is part of the underwriting process. Construction value and requested limits may not be in line with the insurer’s potential exposure: those higher limits requested could place a target on the design firm’s back. The insurer doesn’t want to provide the higher limits that could be used as a cost recovery strategy.

Ensure that requested limits are in line with exposures and construction costs. For example, is it necessary to require a $5 million limit of professional liability insurance from a firm performing services on a $20 million project?
Contact the contract administrator, and state that your firm normally carries a lower professional liability limit than requested, and that it is consistent with industry practice. Inquire if your current limit will be acceptable.

* Include language similar to the following in your contract:

“The expense of any additional insurance coverage or limits requested by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the firm shall be a reimbursable expense paid by the Owner.”

To find out more about types 4 (The Wrap-Up Policy) and 5 (Owner Protective Insurance Policy or OPIP), download the full March 2013 issue from our website.

About the Author: Timothy (Tim) Corbett is Founder and President of SmartRisk, a Pasadena, CA based consultancy with over 25 years of experience providing risk management and performance management solutions to Design and Building Professionals. Mr. Corbett holds a BS Degree in Security & Risk Management, MS Degree in Management; a degree in Environmental studies as well as concentrated studies in Architecture Design and is LEED accredited. For more information on this or other topics, visit the SmartRisk website or email Tim at tcorbett@smartrisk.biz.

Project Insurance: Benefits and Cautions – Part 1 of 2

By Lynda

The February 2013 issue of ProNetwork News is the first installment of a two-part article; the author, Tim Corbett of SmartRisk explains the origins and principles of project coverage and introduces the reader to two of the four main types of Project Insurance.

Project insurance for design professionals was initially established to provide higher, dedicated limits for larger and more complex projects. The other main driving force behind the development of project coverage was to provide owners the security of having project specific limits both during and after the project was complete. Project insurance has evolved and continues to change based on market needs and conditions, as well as insurance company underwriting standards and “appetite,” or the desire to write certain kinds of risks.

More recently, the collaborative project delivery method sometimes referred to as the integrated delivery (ID) or integrated project delivery (IPD) process has impacted project insurance. In IPD, design professionals are no longer the sole authors of the project design: greater contributions are provided by other entities, including the general contractor and the major trade subcontractors. A few select insurance companies have begun to offer project specific policies tailored to the methods and exposures of IPD.

The key to selecting the correct coverage is theoretically simple: match the benefits of the insurance with the entity or entities requiring the protection. Will one option meet that goal? That’s a very good question: you may need a combination of alternatives to accomplish your insurance and risk management objectives. You should also be aware that even obtaining project insurance has been a challenge in the past, and continues to be so today. Continue reading “Project Insurance: Benefits and Cautions – Part 1 of 2”