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.

PNN_1602We’ve posted several times about the confusion surrounding so-called “standard contracts,” as well as the most commonly misunderstood clauses in design professional contracts. When reviewing a new contract for the first time, it can be helpful to know what sound contract language looks like. In February, we published an issue of ProNetwork News titled Template of Reasonable Contract Clauses for Design Professionals. In it, author Kent Holland of ConstructionRisk, LLC lays out 16 templates to help architects and engineers deal with contract review and negotiation.

The following is an excerpt of the Indemnification clause portion of the newsletter, including six different templates for this deceptively complex contractual requirement:

In the examples provided below, some include an obligation to indemnify a client for reasonable attorneys fees and defense costs.  To the extent the a/e is required to pay attorneys fees for its client only because it obligated itself do so by the indemnification clause (i.e., attorneys fees would not be imposed on the a/e by a court under common or law or statute), then these costs will not be covered by insurance.  The contractual liability exclusion will bar their recovery.

Sample 1:

Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the Client, its officers, directors, employees, from and against those liabilities, damages and costs that Client is legally obligated to pay as a result of the death or bodily injury to any person or the destruction or damage to any property, to the extent caused by the willful misconduct, negligent act, error or omission of the Consultant or anyone for whom the Consultant is legally responsible, subject to any limitations of liability contained in this Agreement. Consultant will reimburse Client for reasonable defense costs for claims arising out of Consultant’s professional negligence based on the percentage of Consultant’s liability.

Sample 2: For California contracts must add that there is no duty to defend:

Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless (but not defend) the Client, its officers, directors, employees, from and against those liabilities, damages and costs that Client is legally obligated to pay as a result of the death or bodily injury to any person or the destruction or damage to any property, to the extent caused by the willful misconduct, negligent act, error or omission of the Consultant or anyone for whom the Consultant is legally responsible, subject to any limitations of liability contained in this Agreement. Consultant will reimburse Client for reasonable defense costs for claims arising out of Consultant’s professional negligence based on the percentage of Consultant’s liability.

Continue reading “Indemnification Clause Templates for Architects & Engineers”

contract

Why should I strike “breach of contract” from the indemnity provision in my agreement?

For one thing, it is redundant as there is already a remedy under the law should you breach your contract. Please note the excerpt in the next question from our Practice Notes Vol. 4 NO. 2, Indemnification: How to Identify Unacceptable Risks and Get Them Out of Your Agreements.

What is the significance of the statement in an agreement: “breach of any term or condition of this Agreement”?

Negligence may be difficult to prove, but breach of contract is not. To establish a breach, all an owner need do is prove that 1) you owed a duty to perform under your agreement, 2)you breached that duty, and 3) damages were sustained as a result. This is your client’s fall back position in the event negligence turns out to be impossible to establish. It is also your invitation to the owner to sue you at your expense. There is great leverage in this, and it flows in a single direction-from you to your client. Your client sues you for breach of contract, and you pay the associated attorneys’ fees and costs. Arguably, this is inconsistent with public policy. Public policy generally demands mutuality as a matter of equity where there is an agreement by one party to pay the attorney’s fees of another regardless of the outcome of a dispute between the two. Attorney’s fees are the only issue here, for if you are found to have breached your contract, there is a remedy for that in the law. As far as you are concerned, it is neither necessary, nor is it appropriate for you to add your indemnity to that remedy. Absent negligence your indemnification for breach of contact may be uninsurable; absent mutuality, it is unfair. Delete this language if you can. If you encounter sustained resistance, you might invoke the public policy argument and propose, as an alternative, to substitute language elsewhere in your agreement calling for the non-prevailing party to any dispute to compensate the prevailing party for costs of defense. There is leverage in this for you, but there is also some risk. Seek the advice of counsel before you pursue this strategy.

Excerpted from the FAQ page on the a/e ProNet website, one of many risk management resources for Architects & Engineers. Have any questions? Contact your local a/e ProNet broker or contact us directly today.