Claims Archives - a/e ProNet

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.

SmartRisk Checklist Can Help Your Firm Shore Up Cybersecurity

By Lynda

Architecture and engineering firms are still learning how to cope with a growing cybersecurity threat. According to this year’s Global Application and Network Security Report from Radware, nearly half of all companies experienced a cyber ransomware attack in 2016. Vulnerability to loss of personal data, exposure of sensitive or proprietary information, etc., is also on the rise. Tim Corbett of SmartRisk LLC, a longtime affiliate of a/e ProNet, has recently analyzed the report findings. He writes that the gravest irony is that while “Employees are the first line of defense” against cyberattacks, they are also a company’s “greatest cyber security weakness.”

Employees’ personal habits regarding company data and digital interactions open doors for hackers, viruses, and the siphoning of information. If your employees aren’t aware of basic threats and/or best practices regarding cybersecurity, your firm is more likely to lose out. The costs of these attacks can be severe. They are also avoidable. SmartRisk’s post recommends regular and up-to-date cybersecurity trainings for your firm “[t]o obtain a broad understanding, and buy-in from the entire organization.”

Arm yourself with SmartRisk’s Checklist

According to SmartRisk, cybersecurity training should take place annually. Corbett offers a checklist for these trainings. Remember to include “all members of the organization, including senior management… so they are knowledgeable of recent trends, monitoring methods, and controls used to prevent the installation of malicious code on the organization’s computer systems.” He also recommends making cybersecurity training a standard protocol for new hires. It’s probably a good idea, as well, to encourage your IT department to be accessible for even basic questions on cybersecurity. Demystifying the response to the threat will empower your employees to be proactive in protecting the company’s interests.

October is Cybersecurity Awareness Month, so you can find a/e ProNet’s past posts on related issues here:

Federal Trade Commission Releases How-To Cybersecurity Guide (Oct 2016)

Cyber Security Awareness & Last Week’s DDOS Hack (Oct 2015)

As always, if you have further questions, please contact your a/e ProNet broker.

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”

The Temptation to Cut Corners on Insurance

By Lynda

wood-jetty-landing-stage-sea When it comes to insurance, cutting costs without determining the risks can leave your design firm vulnerable. In a recent IA Magazine article called Are Your A&E Clients Cutting Coverage Corners?, editor Jacquelyn Connelly outlines three crucial “coverage developments” pertinent to architects and engineers:

Cyber liability
Design-build contracts
Stricter insurance requirements

These categories are rapidly changing and expanding. Knowing where the risk comes from isn’t always clear. Design firms, especially a small ones, can easily underestimate their exposure. Connelly quotes Barbara Sable, assistant vice president of the RLI Design Professionals Program (an a/e ProNet sponsor):

“Even the smallest of A&E firms—which often are buying insurance because they’re contractually obligated to, not because they perceive any real exposure—can be in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, a small A&E firm may be responsible for the maintenance of traffic on roadways or bridges. In the event of an accident, “they may be one of the deepest pockets available associated with that crash.”

We encourage you to read the full article and consider your own firm’s professional liability coverage today. If you have questions about whether your limits are adequate, be sure to contact your local a/e ProNet broker and ask. That’s what we’re here for.

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.

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”

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.

The Down-Low on Broker-Verification Questionnaires

By Lynda

In what attorney Brian Stewart calls a “disturbing trend,” more and more project owners design professionals to procure separate questionnaires from their insurance brokers. These “broker-verification questionnaires” are meant to re-state or re-affirm the limits, exclusions, etc. of the relevant insurance policies to the project. If you’re an architect or engineer who has met push-back from your broker on this issue, our November 2015 issue of ProNetwork News explains why:

I: The Problem with Broker Verifications

The use of broker-verification questionnaires has been a growing trend seen most commonly in the context of construction insurance… Historically, a broker has satisfied this requirement through the production of a certificate of insurance or, if necessary, a copy of the policies themselves which demonstrate that the insured had the applicable coverage. However, a number of project owners have recently been refusing to accept certificates alone and are requiring brokers to complete a questionnaire and verification, with the understanding that a failure to complete the questionnaire will cost the broker’s client the job.

The increasingly frequent use of such broker-verification questionnaires raises a number of legal issues for the broker. The first issue deals with the broker’s authority to interpret the underlying policy between the insurer and the insured and whether a broker has the authority to confirm in writing whether a specific policy meets the requirements, not of the contract between the Owner and the insured but rather the requirements contained in the broker-verification questionnaires. The second legal issue deals with the effect of a conflict between the underlying policy and the language of the questionnaire. Specifically, what is the legal consequence when a broker completes a questionnaire that potentially contains conflicting language from the actual policy? Finally, this opinion will analyze what risks and liabilities a broker is exposed to when completing a questionnaire that contains language that is in conflict with or amends, modifies, expands, etc. the underlying policy.

II: Principles of Contract

Insurance is a matter of contract governed by the rules of contract. Unlike the ordinary commercial contract where the parties seek to ensure a commercial advantage for themselves, an insurance contract seeks to obtain some measure of financial security and protection against calamity for the insured.

Being a voluntary contract, as long as the terms and conditions made therefor are not unreasonable or in violation of legal rules and requirements, the parties may make it on such terms, and incorporate such provisions and conditions as they would see fit to adopt. The rights and obligations of parties to an insurance contract are determined by the language of the contact and the insurance policy is the law between the parties unless the contractual provisions are contrary to public opinion or law.

III: Role of the Broker

An insurance broker provides a professional service for the insured, its client and goes to the insurance market to determine what policy or policies best fit the needs of its clients.

Relevant distinctions exist between an insurance agent and an insurance broker. Whereas an agent generally represents a particular insurance company, an insurance broker generally represents only the insured. Consequently, an insurance broker owes a duty to the insured and not the insurer. Continue reading “The Down-Low on Broker-Verification Questionnaires”