Construction Archives

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.

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”

Construction Contracts and Bankruptcy: The Ultimate in “Value Engineering”

By Lynda

shutterstock_462881602

You have just learned that the other party to your contract has filed for bankruptcy. That party owes you money for past work and the project is not yet completed. This is a difficult and confusing situation that your firm might encounter.

In this Practice Note, attorney Jeremy W. Katz provides insight into the bankruptcy mechanism and the steps you might take to protect your firm’s interests.

A prime designer or lead contractor on a design/build project files bankruptcy. Can a design professional/consultant working under contract to the entity filing for bankruptcy protection pack up its gear and walk off the job site or stop work? Can the consultant enforce its mechanics’ lien rights against the real property’s owner? Can the consultant look to the bankrupt’s payment bond for payment? A bankruptcy filed by one party to a construction contract creates significant problems that put at risk the other party’s right to payment. When this happens, the non-debtor party to the construction contract should be ready to act.

The construction business is a volatile one, and it makes little difference if times are good or bad. Prime contractors, consultants, subcontractors, and property owners are constantly filing for bankruptcy protection. They can be huge companies, such as Washington Group, International, Enron, and PG&E, or they can be small mom-and-pop operations. But no matter how large or small the bankruptcy, creditors are likely to suffer, because rarely are they paid in full. All bankruptcies have a ripple effect; the goal is to keep the waves as small as possible. In order to best protect its interests, the creditor should have some knowledge of creditors’ rights and remedies. This knowledge allows the creditor to recognize, anticipate, and act upon issues that arise in a bankruptcy.

This article identifies some of the issues that arise when a bankruptcy is filed, as well as steps a design professional/consultant or subconsultant can take to protect its interests in the project contract. First, this article describes the bankruptcy process from a general standpoint. Second, it discusses specific issues related to the bankruptcy of owners and primes, whether they are design firms or contractors on a design build project. This article is not intended to be a comprehensive study of the topic, nor is it a substitute for a good bankruptcy lawyer. Its purpose is to allow a consultant to identify problems that may affect a construction contract when a bankruptcy is filed. This knowledge makes it more likely that the contractor will fare better than other creditors in the fight to be paid.

Download the full article–Construction Contracts and Bankruptcy: The Ultimate in “Value Engineering”–to continue reading the following sections:

How Bankruptcy Works – An Overview
Pending or Executory Contracts
Perfect Your Mechanics’ Lien Rights!
The Automatic Stay
Unauthorized or Preferential Transfers, or Having to Give Money Back to the Debtor

If you have further questions on construction contracts and bankruptcy, contact your local a/e ProNet broker. We’re here to help!

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.

John Ronan Architects is an Obama Presidential Library Finalist

By Lynda

Chicago architecture firm and a/e ProNet client John Ronan Architects is one of seven finalists for the design of the Obama Presidential Library, which will be built on Chicago’s South Side. The remaining seven firms hail from all over the world, so it’s exciting that at least one “local” architect made the cut. John Ronan Architects may be best known for the dramatic Poetry Foundation building in Chicago. Best of luck to the team!

Shout-out Credit:

Mike Welbel
M.G. Welbel and Associates
650 Dundee Road, Suite 170
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: 847.412.1414
mwelbel@mgwelbel.com