Civil Engineering Archives

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.

Demanding General Contractors and How to Meet Them Halfway

By Lynda

Some of the most frequently asked questions we hear are triggered by the disparities between the insurance coverage available to design professionals and the demands made for coverage by general contractors and their standard contracts.

This is a nuanced area, and you should call your local a/e ProNet broker if you have specific questions. In the meantime, here are a few quick answers to the biggest FAQs concerning this issue:

Is it wise of General Contractors to require professional subconsultants to sign their usual sub-contract form?

No. Contractors that require the use of the same contract form used for construction sub-contractors may unwittingly void the precise coverage they are seeking from their design professional. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions, or E&O) policies for design professionals typically exclude warranties and guarantees, which are generally an integral part of construction sub-contracts. If the design firm “agrees” to the warranties and guarantees or any other responsibility excluded by their professional liability policy, the design firm will be assuming the defense costs and payment obligations if an award is granted by the courts.

The General Contractor has requested to be named as an “Additional Insured” on my professional liability policy. Can I accommodate this request?

It is not a good idea to name the contractor as an additional insured in the sub-consultant’s design E&O policy, because an “Insured vs Insured” exclusion exists in virtually all design E&O policies. If the contractor believes he has a cause of action against his subconsultant design firm, this exclusion will eliminate coverage for both the contractor and the design firm.

How can the General Contractor protect themselves?

The General Contractor may purchase Contractor’s Professional Liability insurance. This will protect the General Contractor from vicarious liability claims from third parties and also solves the problem of the “Insured vs Insured” exclusion that would apply if the contractor brings an action against the subconsultant design firm, when named as an additional insured. Another benefit is a separate set of insurance limits. The General Contractor would have their own set of insurance limits that would not be subject to dilution or reduction from other claimants against the design professional’s E&O policy covering their general practice.

Why would the General Contractor need Professional Liability coverage?

Several reasons:

The General Contractor has the same “vicarious liability” for the negligent acts, errors or omissions of their professional subconsultants as they do for the non-professional subcontractors.

The General Contractor cannot rely solely on the hold harmless indemnity clause in the contract document. The hold harmless may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions because of the language of the indemnity clause.

The subconsultant may not have sufficient insurance or their policy limits may be reduced or exhausted from other claims.

The subconsultant’s policies may be cancelled by the carrier giving notice or for non-payment of premiums. The General Contractor is then left with a false sense of security if they rely on the general liability insurance of the subconsultant, which excludes professional design activities and responsibilities.

Meeting halfway, in this case, really involves helping everyone acquire appropriate coverage. If you are a General Contractor in need of Professional Liability (E&O) insurance, or if you are a design professional who needs someone to explain all this to a General Contractor demanding such ill-advised insurance/contract decisions, please don’t hesitate to call on us.

More answers to Frequently Asked Questions can be found on our FAQ page.

ACEC Announces First a/e ProNet Engineering Scholarship Winner

By Lynda

The ACEC has announced the winners of its five national student awards, and among them is Lauren Grimley, winner of a/e ProNet’s first annual engineering scholarship.

Grimley will graduate from Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan this year and enter the University of Iowa’s master’s program in water resources and environmental engineering in the fall. Grimley’s credentials as a student, her experience, and her enthusiasm for her selected field set her application apart. We’re excited to be a part of her journey toward professionalism and wish her the very best going forward.

Visit our scholarships page to read more about the two annual awards we sponsor every year.

2015 ACEC Professional Liability Insurance Survey of Carriers in Engineering, Inc.

By Lynda

Design firms preparing to purchase or renew professional liability insurance ask the same few questions every year.

How will my professional liability premium be calculated? Will my professional liability premium go up? Should I change professional liability insurance companies?

One helpful resource to answer these questions is the 2015 Professional Liability Insurance Survey of Carriers, a report published annually by the ACEC along with a companion analysis in Engineering, Inc. that includes insight from insurance companies and other experts This year, the title of the article says it all: 2015 was “Smooth Sailing” for the professional liability insurance industry, and that means good things for architects and engineers.

“The ACEC Risk Management Committee worked with the American Institute of Architects, the AIA Trust, and the National Society of Professional Engineers to survey 18 carriers.” With construction spending higher than it’s been in years and expected to rise, the number of insurance companies providing professional liability insurance to architects and engineers is also growing. New markets increase the competition for more established companies, and keep rates stable, which means Eric Moore, President of a/e ProNet and Vice President of Moore Insurance Services, is optimistic.

“Nonrenewal is about the only reason Moore would suggest changing carriers” this year. “If you do see a claim, a carrier you’ve been with a few years is less likely to drop you, he says.”

Also quoted in the article are representatives from several of the top-tier professional liability insurance carriers, like a/e ProNet sponsors Travelers, Beazley, and Victor O. Schinnerer, as well as Tim Corbett of SmartRisk, a performance management consultant for the design and construction industry, who has written for a/e ProNet many times.

You can read a digital version of this article in the January/February 2016 issue of Engineering, Inc.

As always, if you have any questions about this report or the professional liability market, please contact your local a/e ProNet broker today.

Drones: Should Architects & Engineers use them?

By Lynda

They offer a bird’s eye view of construction sites. They provide breathtaking photographic opportunities for architects looking to showcase their work. And they’re fun to fly. However, while they may be intriguing tools for architects and engineers, drones open up the design firms that use them to many possibly unanticipated risks. These days, obtaining a drone is as simple as stopping at your local WalMart, but all drones are not created equal, nor are all drone pilots equally skilled and certified.

Victor O. Schinnerer’s Risk Management Blog recently offered an overview of this issue. Should your design firm use a drone in your administration of contracted services? Read on:

“Professional service firms have to be aware that the use of drones is not a simple transition in the process of observing the work on a project site. As with web cameras, drone cameras often produce far more images than are used in the evaluation of a project. If not properly denoted in a contract, the scope of the firm’s services could include the use of all the available images as part of the firm’s duty to observe and evaluate the project as part of construction contract administration duties.

“Additionally, while licensed drone operators are undoubtedly careful about having general liability insurance that protects others from their negligence in aerial activities, and follow the FAA’s rules and guidelines, many firms using drone photography are doing so as amateurs. Turning hobby activities into commercial uses is likely to be unlawful, dangerous, and uninsured.”

Continue reading Drone use can put firms at risk beyond their knowledge by Frank Musica

Risk of Misclassifying Employees vs. Independent Contractors

By Lynda

The appropriate classification of employees is a frequent source of confusion for design firms, usually coming up around the renewal of a firm’s Workers’ Compensation policy. It is an issue ripe with risk on an Employment Practices level. Recent court rulings in Arizona and Utah have resulted in construction firms paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in back wages, damages, and penalties.

As explained on the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog:

In an age of rising benefit costs and other constraints on the operations of professional service firms, some firms are turning to a range of tactics to reclassify workers to take them off the formal payroll and, therefore, lower their costs and administrative burdens. However, doing so may subject the employer to state and federal employment law fines and penalties.

All this is happening against the backdrop of a broader shifting of risk from employers to workers, who are shouldering an increasing share of responsibility for everything from health insurance premiums to retirement income to job security. While the future might present a model where everyone is truly an independent contractor and neither those actually providing services nor those using the services have any continuing or controlling interest in each other, such a situation does not currently exist and any firm that thinks it can avoid employment responsibilities, tax obligations, or employment practices liability needs to carefully consider alternatives to hiring workers.

Regulators and courts have increased their scrutiny of the relationship between business entities and independent contractors. Alleged misclassification of workers has been one of the primary battlegrounds of this shift, leading to high-profile lawsuits.

For decades, some professional service firms have shifted work from employees to independent contractors to cut their overhead and labor costs and, at times, to qualify for special government procurement assistance. Often, this has been accomplished by relabeling workers and slightly altering the conditions of their work. And some professional service firms have simply ignored regulatory and tax guidance and “informally” used the services of professionals and clerical workers as “consultants” or “leased personnel” or “temps.”

Now, however, businesses—including design firms and construction contractors—are turning to other kinds of employment relationships, such as setting up workers as owners of limited liability companies (LLCs) in an attempt to shield the businesses from tax and labor statutes. In response, some state and federal agencies are aggressively clamping down on such arrangements, passing local legislation, filing briefs in workers’ own lawsuits, and closely tracking the spread of what they see as questionable employment models.

Visit the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog to continue reading.

If you have questions about the appropriate classification of your employees prior to your next workers’ compensation renewal, contact your local a/e ProNet broker. We’re happy to help!

a/e ProNet’s Fall Meeting Kicks Off in Chicago

By Lynda

Dozens of a/e ProNet members from across the country are gathering in Chicago this week for the annual fall meeting. They will be joined by representatives from several top tier professional liability insurance companies and a few major design industry organizations, including the AIA, NSPE, and ACEC.

Over the course of three days, members will receive presentations from the following insurance carriers: Beazley, Ironshore, HCC, Victor O. Schinnerer, Axis, Catlin, Hanover, RLI, All Risks, Liberty, Travelers, Navigators and Arch. These presentations will help inform the specialist brokers of a/e ProNet about industry trends, policy language changes, new coverage opportunities, and the like. It will also give our members a chance to ask questions and make suggestions pertinent to their own clients.

Along with insurer presentations, there will also be ample opportunity for the brokers to network with one another, alerting the group to trends around the country and problem solving in the collective.

To open the week, the Board of Directors will meet, and to close, Kent Holland of Construction Risk will present to the membership on the second edition of a/e ProNet’s Risk Management and Contract Guide for Design Professionals.

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?”

Are You Accepting Too Much Liability on Your Construction Project?

By Lynda

The following is a re-post from the Southeast Construction Law Blog:

Contractors, subcontractors, and A&E firms all face differing levels of liability on construction projects. Managing that exposure is a key to maintaining profitability and ensuring your business is protected.

One issue I consistently see in my practice is companies taking too much liability for their scope of work on a project. For example, what should the liability of a subcontractor be who has a small $25,000 subcontract on a $15 million project? Should the subcontractor be liable for any and all damages?

Many subcontract agreements state that subcontractors are responsible for “any and all costs” caused by a subcontractor’s delay or interference with any portion of the work. While each party should be liable for damages it causes, this determination is never as clear as it seems.

General contractors (and sometimes owners) often control the timing, means, and methods of how a subcontractor performs its work. In those situations, it is difficult for me to explain to a subcontractor that it is liable for everything it does on site. Even so, many subcontractors’ feet are held to the fire for delay costs in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollar range when their contract was initially very small.

Architecture and engineering firms face a similar dilemma. Many times A&E firms are brought into lawsuits in the millions of dollars when their scope of work may have been small. I have seen a civil engineer sued for $12 million when it performed a $1,600 staking job on a project.

In addition, A&E firms face a different challenge. Even if an architect or engineer prevails on the claim, the A&E firm has likely spent thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, all chargeable to the A&E under the deductible in the Professional Liability Insurance policy. Continue reading “Are You Accepting Too Much Liability on Your Construction Project?”