Attorney Archives - a/e ProNet

a/e ProNet Welcomes New Associate Members

By Lynda

Next year, a/e ProNet will celebrate its 30th Anniversary. We’ve been around a long time, but we continue to be a dynamic organization. Now we’re proud to announce a new category of a/e ProNet membership.

Effective immediately, a/e ProNet’s members rolls will include Associate Members: invited attorneys who specialize in serving design professionals.

Associate Member information:

An Associate Member must be an attorney who specializes in providing services to design profession and companies providing professional liability insurance to design professionals
They must be involved in national and/or local design professional associations
They must be recommended by two members of a/e ProNet and complete an application
The application for membership and recommendations will be reviewed by the Membership Committee and approved by the board of directors before an invitation for membership can be extended
The Associate Member shall pay an annual membership fee
An Associate Member can attend all a/e ProNet meetings, receive all information distributed to the membership, and be listed on our website as an Associate Member

The Board of Directors has extended an invitation to the first two Associate Members: Kent Holland (Construction Risk, LLC) and Dave Ericksen (Severson & Werson). Both parties have been invited in recognition of their extensive work they have performed in support of a/e ProNet and on behalf of its members.

We’re looking forward to discovering the many ways this change will be to our benefit and help us to grow.

If You Build It, They Will Sue: Condominium Projects – Part II

By Lynda

Continued from the August 2016 issue of ProNetwork News including an analysis of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, et al. and its impact on future court decisions.

IV. Important Contract Provisions

A. Indemnity, Indemnity, Indemnity!!!

In the real estate business the often-touted phrase is “location, location, location.” In the design and construction industry, the most important contract provision is INDEMNITY. Indemnity is an agreement to assume a specific liability in the event of a loss. It may mean a shifting of risk from one party to another. More often than not, it is the client saddling the design professional with an onerous indemnity provision. Many articles have already been written about addressing the client-drafted indemnity. Avoid an express duty to defend (and in California especially, negate this duty). Tie the indemnity obligation to a determination of negligence. However, in the context of agreeing to perform professional services on a condominium project, you must not only be wary of the indemnity provision imposing a contractual obligation on the design professional, but serious consideration should be given to obtaining express indemnity language from the client developer and/or the client developer’s contractor and subcontractors. Since the design professional may be sued directly by an HOA or individual unit owners, express indemnity running in favor of the design professional is equally important.

B. Waiver of Consequential Damages

These damages are the “indirect damages and expenses” claimed by plaintiff(s) allegedly relating to asserted design and construction defects. Often, consequential damages include damages relating to delays, loss of use, lost profits, etc. It is a balancing provision in that it should recognize, much like a limitation of liability (discussed further below), that there are relative risks and rewards for each party’s participation on the project. As was commonplace during the recent recession, some client developers pursued claims against design professionals and contractors for missed market opportunities to sell their individual units before the housing bubble burst. The design professional has no control over such market factors. A properly-worded, mutual waiver of consequential damages is an appropriate way to address this.

C. Limitation of Liability

Given the increased risk of being sued on a condominium project, a limitation of liability (overall cap) of the design professional from the client developer is essential. A limitation of liability provision can be tied to the amount of available insurance, the architect’s total fee, or some other amount as negotiated between the parties to the contract. The limitation of liability provision should be negotiated at arm’s length such that both parties have the opportunity to accept, reject or modify the provision.

This is an excerpt of the October 2016 issue of ProNetwork News. Download the full PDF of If You Build It, They Will Sue: Condominium Projects – Part II to continue reading. Along with further explanation of the relevance of The Beacon Case, the second in this two-part series provides an overview of several more important contract provisions, including: No Third-Party Beneficiaries, The Certification of Merit, and Provisions Requiring the Developer and Subsequent Owners to Include Maintenance Requirements and Manuals in CC&Rs and Purchase Agreements. As always, these newsletters are available to a/e ProNet clients the month they are published. If you’d like to take advantage of this value-added service, get in touch with your local a/e ProNet broker today.

About the Author

Trevor Resurreccion is a partner at Weil & Drage, and an experienced litigator representing architects, engineers, general contractors, subcontractors, and other members of the design and construction industry. Trevor has handled a wide variety of construction related cases, including claims for design errors and omissions, delays, cost overruns, mechanic’s liens, construction defects, as well as catastrophic personal injury and death claims. He received his undergraduate degree in Architecture with a concentration in construction management. Trevor’s background in the design and construction industry includes hands-on experience on construction projects, including construction administration for an international architectural firm on a high-profile project in Los Angeles and construction management for Georgetown University on a significant university project. As an attorney, he prides himself in his commitment to advocacy for his clients, small and large. He has experience in all aspects of litigation, including arbitrations, trials, and appeals. He is licensed to practice law in California and Nevada.

Indemnity Relief Coming to California Design Professionals

By Lynda

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.

How to Avoid Invalidating Your Professional Liability Insurance

By Lynda

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.

a/e ProNet Holds Annual Spring Meeting in Arizona

By Lynda

For the last few sunny days, a/e ProNet members from across the country have gathered in Scottsdale, Arizona for our annual Spring Meeting (March 1-3). a/e ProNet brokers are independent. Technically, we operate as competitors. Membership is by invitation only. We come together voluntarily as recognized leaders in our industry, meeting the insurance needs of architects and engineers. Our combined premium volume, experience, and national reach make our meetings an attractive target for insurance companies, premium finance companies, and other professionals. With our two annual meetings, we keep our fingers on the pulse of the insurance industry and advocate for our clients.

The Spring Meeting

The purpose of our Spring meeting has changed over the last three decades. Invited representatives from the companies and industries mentioned above present to the group on educational topics. This year, attorney David Ericksen of Severson & Werson in San Francisco also organized a series of five panel discussions:

Non-Traditional Project Delivery Methods
Cyber Communication Conundrums
The Prime/Sub Team: Roles, Responsibilities & Risks
Contract and Claims Connections
Material Transparency & Building Green

Ericksen staffed these panels with underwriters, claims adjusters, etc. from companies like Victor O. Schinnerer, AXIS, Hanover, RLI, Beazley, and several other a/e ProNet sponsors. The panel environment increases the awareness of each company regarding their competitors’ products and services. As well, it gives our members a quick, comprehensive understanding of the market’s overall perspective on these issues. Continue reading “a/e ProNet Holds Annual Spring Meeting in Arizona”

If You Build It, They Will Sue: Condominium Projects – Part I

By Lynda

Do 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”

Design Professionals and the Give-and-Take of “Standard Contracts”

By Lynda

The word standard implies many things. A bar to be cleared; a rubric to be followed. But for design professionals, the word becomes tricky when applied to contracts. Project owners often want to keep things simple by requiring so-called Standard Contracts for all parties. This is a problem for architects and engineers, especially from an insurance perspective.

Construction contracts cause problems for design professionals.

The following are a few Frequently Asked Questions we see from architects and engineers on this issue:

My project Owner insists on using their own contract for hiring my professional services. They are adamant this is a Standard Contract. How should I respond?

There is no such thing as a Standard Contract. Be sure to read each contract submitted by your clients carefully. You need to understand both the client’s expectations and your firm’s rights and responsibilities. It is a good idea to have all owner-drafted agreements reviewed by your attorney and/or insurance broker. This will help to determine whether you are accepting responsibility beyond what common law would hold you to in the absence of the agreement. If, for example, you agree to accountability beyond the protection afforded by your professional liability insurance, that’s a problem.

When I perform professional services for a Contractor in lieu of an Owner, should I be concerned?

Yes. Construction contracts are not meant to be used in this arrangement; they are not designed to meet the needs of the design professional.

What are some of the problems with using “construction contracts” for design services?

Construction contracts are problematic for design professionals. A General Contractor’s contract with a project Owner includes certain requirements (e.g. means, methods, procedures, sequences, safety, etc.). These requirements trickle down to construction subcontractors the verbiage of construction contracts. Beyond that, none of these requirements meet the test of what a design professional should required to do on the same job.

Contract document libraries available via the AIA and EJCDC can be a good place for design professionals to begin. These are standard in the sense that they are templates. However, it’s still important to seek individualized guidance from your attorney and/or insurance broker.

What are some of the other problems with utilizing “construction contracts” for design services?

Most construction contracts contain warranties/guarantees, and some have performance standards. To our knowledge, all professional liability insurance policies for design professionals exclude coverage for warranties/guarantees and (likely) performance standards. Remember: if you commit your design firm to more responsibility than the law expects of you, your insurance policy cannot protect you the way that it should.

We hope you’ve found this helpful. As always, be sure to contact your local a/e ProNet broker if you have further questions.

a/e ProNet’s Fall Meeting to Commence in Chicago

By Lynda

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.

Certificates of Insurance: Why You Can’t Always Have It Your Way

By Lynda

Design 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”