Insurance Archives - Page 3 of 6

Prevailing Party Perils: Attorney’s Fees’ Clauses in Professional Service Contracts

By Lynda

In the world of claims-related contract clauses for design professional agreements, the indemnity and defense clauses get all the attention. However, lurking in the shadow of the indemnity clause is a menacing cousin with potentially even greater and more frequent impact and risk: the prevailing party attorneys’ fee clause. Both clauses share the common risk that they are often not covered by professional liability insurance because each represents a contractually-assumed liability which would not exist in the absence of the contract.

The indemnity clause draws the far greater attention because that obligation and exposure often arises during the claim by way of the defense obligation, as opposed to the attorneys’ fees clause which ultimately comes into play definitively only after a final judgment. Moreover, many design professionals (and especially their CFOs) are attracted to the prevailing fees clause as a means of effectively collecting unpaid fees. Without such a clause, they worry that the expense of pursuing collection of unpaid fees will eat up much of the ultimate recovery. Accordingly, it has some initial positive appeal.

However, that appeal is limited in perspective and overlooks the far greater potential negative impact of the prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause in the context of a professional liability claim which is the all too common response to even justified actions to recover unpaid fees. As opposed to the indemnity and defense obligation, the prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause will apply far more frequently. The indemnity and defense clause applies only where the client itself is facing a third-party claim. By contrast, the prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause will generally apply to every client dispute, regardless if third parties are involved. Since the majority of claims against design professionals come from the project client, that makes it far more likely and relevant. Moreover, where professional liability issues are involved in the dispute, the presence of the clause may actually dilute the design professional’s fiscal advantage. Specifically, absent the perceived panacea of the prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause, design professionals frequently hold a superior financial advantage during claims by virtue of their insurance which will fund defense costs as compared to the client claimant which is often left to fund the costs of litigation from their own resources. The unfortunate reality is that pacified by the promise or potential to recover their attorneys’ fees at the end of the dispute, many client claimants and their attorneys incur far more than they would absent that prospective reimbursement—even to the point of incurring multiples in expense beyond the prospective recovery. Even if the claim is largely defeated or reduced, even a minimal net recovery may establish the client as the prevailing party entitled to recover the attorneys’ fees incurred in the action.

Whether expressly stated as such, or not, it is important to recognize that a prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause is almost always a two edged sword equally available to both parties. As a matter of consumer protection, nearly every state has statutes which refuse to recognize one-sided attorneys’ fees clauses and automatically convert the clause into a bilateral clause entitling and exposing each side to the benefits and burdens of the clause. (See for example Oregon Revised Statute 20.096 and Florida Statute Section 57.105(7).) Accordingly, a clause which purports to entitle the design professional to recovery of its attorneys’ fees in pursuit of its fees will most often to create and equivalent right of recovery in the client for contract related claim.

Whether proposed by the client or by the design professional, prevailing party attorneys’ fees clauses are a common component of many commercial contracts, including design professional service agreements. An unqualified prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause is almost never a good idea for a design professional. Where such a clause is proposed, the following five options present a descending structure of preferred approaches. In proposing or negotiating any of these five options, frequently the best rationale in support of these approaches is that any dispute should focus on resolution of the dispute and not arming the lawyers for battle.

This has been an excerpt of the March 2015 issue of ProNetwork News, titled Prevailing Party Perils: Attorney’s Fees’ Clauses in Professional Service Contracts. To continue reading about the five preferred approaches to dealing with an unqualified prevailing party attorneys’ fees clause, click here to download the full PDF version of our newsletter for free.

About the Author

David A. Ericksen is a principal shareholder in and immediate past President of the law firm of Severson & Werson in San Francisco, California, and leads the firm’s Construction and Environmental Practices. For over twenty years, Mr. Ericksen has specialized in the representation of architects, engineers, construction managers, design-builders, and other construction professionals. Mr. Ericksen’s expertise covers all aspects of such professional practice as lead litigation and trial counsel, as well as being an active resource for risk management, strategic planning, and transactional matters. He is a trusted and valued resource to design and construction professionals and their insurance carriers across the United States and beyond. He has been repeatedly recognized as an industry leader, including being named a Construction “SuperLawyer” for the last eight years. He is a graduate of Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley, a former law clerk to the Washington State Supreme Court, and a member of and resource to numerous construction and environmentally-related professional organizations. Mr. Ericksen is a frequent speaker before construction professional organizations such as the AIA, SEA, ACEC, CSI and others, as well as providing in-house training seminars for firms.

Insurance for Design Professionals vs. General Contractors

By Lynda

When it comes to the world of construction contracts, there is no one-size-fits-all solution regarding insurance. The Design Professional’s insurance policies cannot and should not anticipate the needs and risks of a General Contractor, for example. This comes up all the time at the beginning of contract negotiations. You can sidestep disputes further down the road if you understand the way your insurance policy and carrier will respond in the event of a claim. Here are a few Frequently Asked Questions:

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-consultants design E&O policy. The principal reason involves the “insured vs insured” exclusion found in virtually all design E&O policies. If the contractor believes he has a cause of action against his sub-consultant 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 would bring an action against the sub-consultant 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 errors & omissions policy covering their general practice.

Why would the General Contractor need Professional Liability coverage?

The General Contractor has the same “Vicarious Liability” for the negligent acts, errors or omissions of their professional sub-consultants 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 Sub-Consultant may not have sufficient insurance or their policy limits may be reduced or exhausted from other claims. The 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 sub-consultant, which excludes professional design activities and responsibilities.

If you had more questions about this common issue, call your local a/e ProNet broker.

Managing Employee Benefits: A Three-Legged Stool of Protection

By Lynda

For many design firms, the ability to offer and maintain competitive employee benefit programs continues to be one of the keys to attracting and retaining the best available talent. Yet, the regulatory and legal environment within which these benefit plans are being designed and administered is more complex than ever. Not only are there ERISA issues, but there is a literal alphabet soup of COBRA, FMLA, HIPAA, etc. With this greater complexity and heightened scrutiny comes risk: risk for the company itself, and the executives and administrators responsible for overseeing and administering the benefit plans.

The good news is that the risks are manageable and design firms with employee benefit programs can take advantage of a three-legged stool of insurance protection – Employee Benefits Liability Insurance, ERISA Bonds, and Fiduciary Liability Insurance. Many executives and administrators are confused about what each of these covers and whether or not they need them. This article will explain how each coverage evolved and what specific exposures they address. We also examine some risk scenarios based on actual litigation.

Employee Benefits Liability Insurance

Employee Benefits Liability insurance (EBL) very simply provides protection against claims arising from errors in the administration of employee benefit plans. This coverage was developed in the mid-1970s largely in response to exposures that arose from the 1962 court decision in Gediman v. Anheuser Busch. In this case, an employer was held accountable to the estate of a former employee for providing incorrect information to the health insurance company, which then in turn denied the employee’s claim. Thus, EBL insurance addresses claims arising out of errors or omissions in the administration of benefit plans. Three typical exposure scenarios covered by EBL insurance include:

An employer failing to properly enroll an employee for health insurance coverage, resulting in a denial of coverage.
An employer not providing an employee with the appropriate COBRA information after termination, resulting in the ex-employee being unable to continue participating in the health insurance plan as required by law.
An employer incorrectly calculating the amount of an employee’s pension benefit so that the employee decides to retire early only to find that the amount is much less.

Continue reading “Managing Employee Benefits: A Three-Legged Stool of Protection”

Blog Love: Victor O. Schinnerer’s Risk Management Blog

By Lynda

Yes, we know. We’ve given them a shout-out before, but it’s well-deserved. Here’s an excerpt from their most recent post, an answer to a design professional FAQ:

Why are some words in your contracts capitalized and others aren’t?

I recently received a telephone call from a policyholder asking this question because of a minor issue that arose when the term “notice of award” was capitalized in the general conditions, but was not capitalized in the instructions to bidders. His attorney advised that “it could be argued” (a not-unusual term for an attorney to use when trying to interpret contract language) that since the term was not capitalized in the instructions to bidders that it was not the same as the written notice defined in section 1 of the general conditions. The policyholder advised that the issue of telephone notification vs. written notification had been resolved, but it got him thinking about the many terms in his contract documents that are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not and he wondered why.

Capitalized words by convention usually mean defined terms. For example, “XYZ Corporation (‘Client’) promises to….” allows the rest of the contract to use “Client” instead of the full name. The same applies to other defined terms. You define them and then use the capitalized word thereafter to differentiate it from common English terms interpreted as their common meaning.

Visit the Schinnerer RM Blog to continue reading…

a/e ProNet Holds Spring Meeting in Trendy Austin

By Lynda

Every spring, our members gather to network with one another, as well as to meet with representatives from the top-tier professional liability insurance providers. While our fall meeting is always held in Chicago, our spring meeting changes locations each year. For 2015, the choice was clear: trendy Austin, Texas!

10167978_10206206928070756_4679841597472695152_n — Above: Our crew enjoys the southern cuisine and atmosphere at Threadgill’s

The three-day meeting wraps up today, and our members will scatter back to their respective states, ready to assist their clients, newly equipped with the latest industry intelligence.

Are you a design professional with an insurance-related question? Get in touch with your local a/e ProNet broker today!

To Report or Not To Report? A Potential Claims Question…

By Lynda

Before a design professional decides whether or not to report a professional liability claim, or circumstance out of which a claim might arise, he or she must understand the definition of a claim, circumstance and what is required of them under their policy. The pros and cons of reporting or not reporting a claim are more fully explored in this Practice Notes.

Why Firms Neglect to Report Claims

From an insurance provider’s point of view, it seems that design firms faced with a claim (or a potential claim) too often come close to jeopardizing their professional liability insurance (PLI) coverage. Many firms resist calling their insurance provider to report the matter or ask for advice. Their reasons tend to fall within one of four categories:

Ignorance. They do not realize what their policy requires of them when they are presented with a claim or possible claim.

Fear. They fear the black mark on their claim history more than they fear the claimant.

Denial. They believe that ignoring the problem will produce the best result.

Resolve. They have read their policies, understand the risks, embraced that the issue exists andafter this careful analysis, choose not to report.

Know Your Terminology

Claims

It is critical that insurance policyholders understand their duties, responsibilities, and benefits under their PLI contract. One of the duties is to report all claims promptly.

What defines a claim? Most policies refer to it as a “demand for money or services.” So the telephone call from the angry client asking you to pay for damages they believe they have suffered as a result of your professional services would rise to the definition of “claim” under most policies.

Why is this definition important? Remember, you must report claims promptly. Failure to meet your obligations under the insurance policy may jeopardize your coverage.

Possible claims

It is important to know how your insurance policy defines a “claim” versus a “possible claim.” Possible claims typically do not rise to the definition of “claim” but could become one. Policies generally define possible claims as “a circumstance from which you reasonably expect that a claim could be made.”

Are you required to report these instances to your insurance company? Maybe. Most policies read, “if you report a circumstance,” but some state, “you must give written notice.” The circumstance provision in most policies goes on to say that if you follow the reporting requirements, “then any claim that may subsequently be made against you arising out of such circumstance shall be deemed to have been made on the date the insurance company received written notice of the circumstance.”

With some policy forms, firms have a fair amount of discretion on whether to report a “circumstance,” unlike the requirement that you promptly report all claims. Keep in mind that most PLI policies for design firms are claims-made, which means that insurance cove rage is not retroactive to an unreported occurrence. Continue reading “To Report or Not To Report? A Potential Claims Question…”

Construction Phase Services: Considerations for a Successful Outcome

By Lynda

The construction phase is a dynamic time of a project and a design professional’s involvement is significant from a risk management perspective since it allows the design professional the opportunity to provide input during the construction of the project. Since no designs are perfect (and, moreover, are not expected to be perfect to still meet the standard of professional skill and care), all designs require some level of interpretation that is best done by the design professional who created them. During construction, the design professional can visit the jobsite to determine if construction is proceeding in general accordance with the plans and specifications and clarify the design intent when necessary. This article addresses issues design professionals should consider if they provide services during this phase.

Do you have the resources?

The firm must have sufficient staff to devote to this important phase of the project. The services during this phase require experienced professionals who know how to handle themselves on the jobsite and how to successfully complete tasks in the office. If junior professionals perform construction phase services, the firm must ensure senior professionals are available to (and actually do) mentor the junior staff. A successful mentoring program requires regular and meaningful communication between junior and senior staff who need to be proactive to nurture the mentoring relationship. Mentoring is a two-way street: it will not be effective if busy senior professionals do not devote time to advance junior professionals’ development and junior staff must take the initiative to seek out senior staff for guidance.

What does your contract say?

Industry standard documents have relatively balanced language regarding the construction phase. However, design professionals are often faced with a client-

proposed document that may not include appropriate language for the design professional’s involvement in the construction phase. Continue reading “Construction Phase Services: Considerations for a Successful Outcome”

Risk Management Bulletin: OSHA Inspections

By Lynda

Just as nobody wants to think about insurance until they need it, nobody wants to spend their time thinking about things like Crisis Management Plans. But, as with insurance, the only way a Crisis Management Plan can be useful to you is if you have established one before the crisis comes.

One of our members, Wortham Insurance & Risk Management, recently published a Risk Management Bulletin on OSHA Inspections, and it’s relevant to this precise consideration.

Who are you going to call? When the OSHA inspector shows up or a serious accident occurs at your worksite… who are you going to call? If you answered Ghostbusters… you may be in trouble. May I suggest having a system in place that outlines the procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency or OSHA inspection?

Based on the nature of the risk for construction operations it is very important for every organization to have a Crisis Management Plan which includes how to deal with governmental agencies.

What is a crisis? An explosion, a worker fatality, a bad truck accident, a hurricane? All of these can potentially be a crisis. So, when is a crisis reached? When questions arise that can’t be answered. (Kapuscinski 1932) The key to crisis management is to know the answer to the questions before they happen.

When it comes to an OSHA inspection the process should be no different.

Develop policies and procedures so all parties know the law and their individual responsibilities. The goal is to make the inspection process go as smooth as possible while maintaining control of the environment as much as possible. If you are prepared this will create a positive impression for the compliance officer and result in fewer citations for the organization.

To continue reading this valuable bulletin, including sections on knowing your rights and making a reliable plan for OSHA inspections, download the full PDF of the newsletter here.

How Does California Supreme Court Beacon Ruling Affect Architects?

By Lynda

The following is an excerpt from a recent Gordon & Rees LLP article entitled California Supreme Court Holds Principal Architects Owe Duty of Care to Future Homeowners:

On July 3, the Supreme Court of California published its decision in Beacon Residential Community Assn. v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. In short, the court concluded that prime architects designing residential buildings owe a duty of care to future homeowners even though they do not actually build the projects themselves or exercise ultimate control over their construction.

Of importance, Beacon involved a demurrer at the trial court level meaning that, on appeal, the Supreme Court was required to accept the facts pled in the plaintiff’s amended complaint as true. This included the allegation that the Beacon project’s designers provided their services “knowing that the finished construction would be sold as condominiums.” It also was claimed that the defendants played an active role throughout the construction process, including coordinating efforts of the design and construction teams, conducting weekly site visits and inspections, recommending design revisions as needed, and monitoring compliance with design plans. For their various services, the designers were reportedly paid $5 million. The plaintiff alleged that negligent design work resulted in several defects, including extensive water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, excessive solar heat gain, structural cracks, and other safety hazards…

Although not a total loss for the design community, Beacon will have the effect of expanding architects and engineers (A&E) liability to a broader spectrum of claimants and generally keep A&E defendants in lawsuits for longer periods of time.

For an explanation of the court’s decision, including a concise summary of the affects of the ruling on Architects and Engineers, visit the original Gordon & Rees post by attorney Dion N. Cominos.

Complex precedents like this are just one of the reasons why A&Es are best served by consulting specialist brokers about their Professional Liability insurance needs. Does your current professional liability insurance policy include pre-claims assistance? How about the latitude to choose your own council in the event of of a claim? Call your local a/e ProNet Broker and get answers to these questions today.