Tag: Duty to Defend

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.

An Unfair Duty to Defend

By Lynda

pnn_unfairdutytodefendNo engineering project is without risk. Somewhere between the goal of designing the best bridge, building or water treatment facility and running a profitable business lurks the ever-present possibility of litigation. A legitimate disagreement can occur, a company can make a mistake, or a firm or government entity—or a member of the public—can file a lawsuit that forces the firm to defend itself and its work. “A lot of risks exist and they’re not necessarily related to the quality of the work performed,” says John Moossazadeh, a senior vice president at Kleinfelder in San Diego.

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

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

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

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