Newsletter Archives - Page 3 of 5

Project Insurance: Benefits and Cautions – Part 1 of 2

By Lynda

The February 2013 issue of ProNetwork News is the first installment of a two-part article; the author, Tim Corbett of SmartRisk explains the origins and principles of project coverage and introduces the reader to two of the four main types of Project Insurance.

Project insurance for design professionals was initially established to provide higher, dedicated limits for larger and more complex projects. The other main driving force behind the development of project coverage was to provide owners the security of having project specific limits both during and after the project was complete. Project insurance has evolved and continues to change based on market needs and conditions, as well as insurance company underwriting standards and “appetite,” or the desire to write certain kinds of risks.

More recently, the collaborative project delivery method sometimes referred to as the integrated delivery (ID) or integrated project delivery (IPD) process has impacted project insurance. In IPD, design professionals are no longer the sole authors of the project design: greater contributions are provided by other entities, including the general contractor and the major trade subcontractors. A few select insurance companies have begun to offer project specific policies tailored to the methods and exposures of IPD.

The key to selecting the correct coverage is theoretically simple: match the benefits of the insurance with the entity or entities requiring the protection. Will one option meet that goal? That’s a very good question: you may need a combination of alternatives to accomplish your insurance and risk management objectives. You should also be aware that even obtaining project insurance has been a challenge in the past, and continues to be so today. Continue reading “Project Insurance: Benefits and Cautions – Part 1 of 2”

{ProNet Practice Note} The Collections-Claim Connection: Getting Paid Without Getting Sued

By Lynda

One of the many value added resources a/e ProNet brokers offer is access to our ProNet Practice Notes, in-depth white papers prepared by members of a wide variety of professions related to the design industry. They offer insight and advice on topics like risk management, practice management, and litigation issues for Architects, Engineers, and other Design Professionals.

Our most recent edition is titled The Collections-Claim Connection: Getting Paid Without Getting Sued, authored by attorney David A. Ericksen of Severson & Werson in San Francisco, CA. The full PDF version of this excellent paper, including several helpful attachments, is available for download at our website. The following is an excerpt for your review. We hope you find it helpful!

Introduction

While money isn’t everything, it is the measure and fuel of any business, including a design firm. Without payment for services firms suffer, starve, and even die. Payment issues are also often the single greatest warning sign of a project in trouble.

Perhaps there is no greater indicator of the correlation between unpaid fees and troubled projects and relationships than the remarkable frequency with which efforts of design professionals to collect unpaid fees through litigation result in even larger responsive counter-claims from clients alleging professional negligence. 2011 gave the entire industry the most dramatic and alarming example of this pattern. Having already received over $8.2M in fees, the engineering firm Carter & Burgess sued its client the City of Victorville in Southern California for the final $106,196 on a power plant project that the City had been forced to partially abandon mid-project due to cost overruns. The City responded with a counter-claim for professional negligence. When the verdict came in 2011, it was devastating financially and professionally as news, industry, and internet sources widely reported and publicized the award of $52.1M in damages against the engineering firm.

The results of such a counter-claim need not be as dramatic in terms of publicity or financial losses to be devastating to the firm. In addition to the unpaid fees, there are many other impacts of even a “defensive” counter-claim. They frequently include:

Deductible payments for legal fees and costs, which may even include the involvement of a second “defense” attorney.
Insurance impacts for rating, pricing, and loss history.
Lost internal time and resources for purposes of participation in defense.
Publicity and required disclosures in future responses to RFPs for claims history.
Potential uninsured exposure for prevailing party attorneys’ fees if negligence claims exceed fee claims.
Ultimate discounted or waived fees for expediency of resolving and closing claim.

Obviously, avoiding such collection challenges and the potential for responsive claims is critical to good business and project success.

In reality, a proper approach to collections closely resembles a proper regimen for personal health. Firms which get paid become and remain healthy and strong. Firms which do not get paid regularly and on time become malnourished and increasingly susceptible to disease. Just as health is a life-long process, financial success is a project-long process. The following discussion tracks the relevant phases and provides analyses and strategies for those various phases. Those phases are: Continue reading “{ProNet Practice Note} The Collections-Claim Connection: Getting Paid Without Getting Sued”

Shootout At The Copyright Corral

By Lynda

It is no secret that in the current economic environment, it can be difficult to find projects, and the problem may not end there. It can be even more difficult to secure prompt payment from your client. Sometimes, it is difficult to secure payment at all.

There are certain statutory protections for architects in many states: design professionals’ liens for certain projects and mechanics’ liens for others. But like other legal remedies, statutory protections require timely legal action, and the legal fight can be both financially and personally arduous.

Most of the time, architects and other design professionals have one potential weapon in their arsenals that no one else on the project can bring to the unpaid fees fight: the ability to control the use of their work product through copyright protection. As long as the work product meets certain statutory requirements and their rights are not otherwise waived, design professionals own a copyright by authorship alone. Additionally, registering the copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office entitles the copyright owner to additional statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in any ensuing infringement action.

Copyright is an underutilized tactic in the fee collection “gun fight.” On a project where construction had been in full progress but is stalled because no one – design professionals, project manager, general, and subcontractors – has been paid by the owner, the standard litigation tactic is to sue for breach of contract and file an action for foreclosure on any lien rights. But what if the owner is also in default on its construction loan? Continue reading “Shootout At The Copyright Corral”

Architects Step Into Contractors Liability, Size XXL

By Lynda

If you have ever gone car or shoe shopping with and for someone else (teenagers and significant others, in particular), you know the difficulty and frustration that usually follows efforts to fit and style those with strong opinions and feelings on the subject. Such shopping is more an effort in very personal comfort, feel and perception than utility. The same can be true for design professionals’ scope of services. The most recent economy has left design professionals to suffer earliest, longest and hardest, particularly those that rely on residential development. To keep busy, some A/Es are marketing a broader scope of services, including services historically reserved for construction contractors. The comfort, feel and perception of such expanded scopes of services are highly personal but come with distinct and practical liabilities and risks. Like finding the right shoe size or vehicle type, A/Es can manage expanded risks with properly fitting contracts, insurance and professional structure.

SUV v. Sedan and Dress Shoe v. Cleats

In annual magazine reviews, sedans are compared to sedans and SUVs are compared to SUVs. The same is true of legal standards by which different roles are judged. A/Es provide a professional service and are compared to other A/Es by a standard of care – what others in the same profession are doing or would have done for a similar project. A/E contracts typically take care to adhere to recitations of the baseline standard of care and avoid or disclaim responsibility for means and methods, safety, warranties and the contractor’s timely or proper performance.

Contractors provide a finished product which is judged by a good and workmanlike standard: a warranty of quality, timeliness and, usually, safe performance of the work. Contractor agreements therefore give the contractor control over and responsibility for means and methods, safety, warranties, schedule and performance.

Crossovers and Hybrids

There is a line between trucks and cars, but there are luxury SUVs and crossovers to blur the line and offer compromises of varying degree. The line between A/E services and contractor services has become equally fuzzy. Try to explain in words the difference between the scope of services of a Construction Manager/Advisor, a Program Manager and an Owner’s Representative. For example: The label is less important than the intended division of responsibility, control and money, and how that is expressed in a contract. Continue reading “Architects Step Into Contractors Liability, Size XXL”

Veni, Vidi, Vici, Lis Pendens: I came, I saw, I got sued – Part 2 of 2

By Lynda

The following is an excerpt of Part 2 in this two-part series. In Part 1, author Eric Singer covered Veni (I went to the site) and Vidi (I observed for general conformance with design intent).

Lis Pendens – I got sued anyway

Sometimes observable deficiencies get missed, or the timing, relative solvency or insured status of the parties and plain old bad luck conspire to force you to defend your compliance with the standard of care. In tort claims (injuries, property damage or other calamities), most states have procedural mechanisms to apportion fault among the parties or to add parties potentially at fault. Contract lawsuits are different and an owner could choose to pursue the A/E and leave the contractor alone or to settle and join forces with the contractor. In contract cases, many jurisdictions make it difficult for an architect to pursue claims against a contractor without a direct contract. You can defend by blaming the contractor’s “empty chair” or try a more aggressive approach. The general conditions may provide you with some ammunition.

General Conditions frequently contain a warranty in favor of both the owner and the architect. The AIA A201 (2007), for example, provides “The Contractor warrants to the Owner and Architect that materials and equipment furnished under the Contract will be of good quality and new unless the Contract Documents require or permit otherwise. The Contractor further warrants that the Work will conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents and will be free from defects, except for those inherent in the quality of the Work the Contract Documents require or permit.” (A201 – 2007, §3.5). Interpretation of this provision and rights of the architect in these circumstances varies greatly state to state. If viable in your state, a warranty claim against the contractor may prevent the owner and contractor from settling cheap or joining forces against the design team.

To read about Vici, I conquered, visit our website where you may download the full PDF version of this October 2012 issue (and all previous issues) of our ProNetwork Newsletters.

About the Author: Eric Singer is a partner at Ice Miller, LLP. He concentrates his practice in construction law, with emphasis on the representation of architects, engineers, contractors, owners, and lenders as well as other professionals, in litigation and alternative dispute resolution of design and construction issues. Mr. Singer, who was awarded his J.D by the University of Chicago Law School, is a former Professional Affiliate Director of the American Institute of Architects of Chicago and is a member of multiple bar associations and design professional groups. Recently ranked as AV Preeminent by Martindale-Hubbell and listed in The Best Lawyers of America, Construction Law, by those peer-review organizations, Eric is an active speaker and prolific author on the subject of construction litigation and the liability of the design professional. Contact Eric Singer at: eric.singer@icemiller.com

Don’t forget to contact your local a/e ProNet broker if you have any questions!

Building Commissioning: Process Types & Definitions

By Lynda

Excerpted from the August 2012 issue of ProNetwork News:

Commissioning is a quality-oriented process for achieving, verifying, and documenting that the performance of facilities and systems meets defined objectives and criteria. It is a quality-based method that is adopted by the building Owner to achieve successful construction, and it is not intended to be an additional layer of construction or project management. When applied comprehensively, the purpose is to reduce the overall cost of a construction project and increase long-term value to the building owners, occupants, and users, better ensuring reliability of performance.

New Building Commissioning (Cx)

The purpose of New Building Commissioning (Cx) is to facilitate and verify proper system performance of a new building. The Process begins at project inception (during the Pre-Design Phase) and continues for the life of the facility (through the Occupancy and Operations Phase).

Why should Building Commissioning be done?

ASHRAE performed a study of 60 commercial buildings and found that more than half suffered temperature control problems, 40% had problems with HVAC equipment and one-third had sensors that were not operating properly. Amazingly, 15% of the buildings were actually missing specified equipment.

The Commissioning Process is intended to reduce the project capital cost through the first year of operation. It also reduces the life-cycle cost of the facility. By utilizing this process a fully functional, fine-tuned facility is provided, with complete documentation of its systems/assemblies, and with operators and maintenance personnel fully trained.

Building commissioning is of greatest value to the owner when it provides a means of continuously communicating their building systems criteria and rigorously verifying compliance with them, throughout the many phases of design and construction.

Prior to design, the Commissioning Authority (CxA) will assist the Owner in evaluating the facility’s requirements regarding such issues as energy conservation, indoor environment, staff training, and operation and maintenance. Continue reading “Building Commissioning: Process Types & Definitions”

Getting Paid For Design Services

By Lynda

The last few years have been challenging for many design firms. Adding fuel to this fire, many firms are having difficulty obtaining payment for their services. In a recent and ongoing SmartRisk Survey: 81% indicated trouble with getting paid. Successful account receivable programs do not have to be time consuming or daunting. By implementing some straightforward practices, a firm can implement an effective program that gets invoices paid on time along with maintaining a positive relationship with clients.

Establishing Financial Expectations. In an initial meeting with clients, explain in a clear and concise manner exactly what your services will be and the value you bring to the project, along with clearly stating your compensation terms. Your communication should be clear in establishing the financial expectations with the client. At this face-to-face meeting, you will obtain a sense of the client’s financial capability and ability to pay for your services. If you don’t get that warm and fuzzy financial feeling, this is the time to walk away.

Contract Agreement. The boundaries discussed at the initial meeting should be outlined in the contract agreement. Include a specific scope of services for the project, associated fees, expenses and cost of additional services. In basic terms, the agreement should explicitly state your client owes you money for services you will be rendering. The agreement should also specify the terms of payment, including any payment in advance of services. Continue reading “Getting Paid For Design Services”

Case Study: No Common Law Indemnification Duty Owed by General Contractor

By Lynda

No Common Law Indemnification Duty Owed by General Contractor to Project Owner for Subcontractor Employee Injuries Where GC Did Not Control and Supervise the Subcontractor’s Work

In a case whose principles apply to design professionals as well as general contractors, a GC was performing a build-out for a store tenant (not the project owner) and retained the services of a subcontractor for certain work. An employee of the subcontractor was injured by falling from a ladder, and the project owner sued the contractor for common law indemnification and contractual indemnification for damages for which the Owner had been found vicariously liable under the state’s statutory law.

Although the general contractor had not itself been found to be directly liable or vicariously liable for the subcontractor employee injuries, the property owners argued they were entitled to common law indemnification. They asserted the general contractor contractually assumed sole responsibility and control of the entire project, and had the contractual authority to (1) direct, supervise and control the means and methods of plaintiff’s work, and (2) institute safety precautions to protect the workers.

The Owner asked the Court to adopt a general rule that a party may be liable for common-law indemnification upon a showing that the party (i.e., the proposed indemnitor) either was actually negligent or had the authority to direct, control or supervise the injury-producing work, even if it did not exercise that authority. What the Owner asked to court to do was equate a party that merely has authority to direct, control or supervise the work with a party who is actively at fault in bringing about the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

The appellate court held that in the absence of proof of any negligence or actual supervision of a general contractor, the mere authority the general contractor has to supervise the work and implement safety procedures is not a sufficient basis to require common law indemnification of the project owner. McCarthy v. Turner Construction, Inc., 953 N.E. 2d 794, (New York, 2011).

Although the GC interacted with the subcontractor and the sub-subcontractor firm whose employee was injured, the GC had no supervisory authority over the sub-subcontractor’s work and it provided no tools or ladders to subcontractors that worked at the site.

No Contractual Indemnification

Citing case law that stands for the proposition that through a contractual indemnification clause, an owner who is only vicariously liable by statute may seek full indemnification from the party that is wholly responsible for the accident, the court found in this case that there was no direct contractual relationship between the project owner and the general contractor. The contract was in fact between the contractor and a store tenant of the project owner. In addition, the owner had no third party beneficiary rights under the contract between the contractor and the store tenant. For these reasons, the contractual indemnification claim was dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.

This has been an excerpt of the June 2012 edition of ProNetwork News. Download the full PDF version of this newsletter to read more about Common Law Indemnification and the implications for design professionals.

About the Author: J. Kent Holland is a construction lawyer with the risk management consulting firm Construction Risk Counsel, PLLC, in Tysons Corner – Vienna, Virginia. The firm provides consulting services including: Contract Risk Management and Insurability Review; Change Order and Claim Preparation and Analysis; Insurance Risk Management; Insurance policy and endorsement review and drafting; and Risk Management Training. Mr. Holland is admitted to practice law in Virginia and Maryland and concentrates on construction and environmental law, insurance and risk management. For more information, call 703-623-1932 or e-mail Kent@ConstructionRisk.com. This article is adapted from one originally published in ConstructionRisk.com Report, Vol. 14, No. 5 (May 2012). and is used here with permission.

Integrated Project Delivery: Changing the Insurance Landscape

By Lynda

With more project owners demanding the use of Building Information Modeling (BIM), project delivery is necessarily carried out through greater contributions of design input by the general contractor and the major trade subcontractors. The design professionals are no longer the sole authors of the project design. This collaborative project delivery method has been called integrated project delivery (IPD). The contribution of design input from each of the various project players using IPD is a significant break from the traditional division of responsibility recognized in the standard design-bid-build project delivery method. Players who never participated in the project design now face potential risk of professional liability. Additionally, the new, cutting-edge technologies being used for BIM expand the types of risks born by the design professional if there are errors and omissions within the computer modeling system or the improper management of the computerized data.

What is BIM?

BIM involves computerized design software tools that help create a model that reflects all of the building components’ geometric and functional qualities. The general contractor and trade subcontractors provide product-specific information for building components and that data is inputted into the model, including performance specifications, connection details and cost data. However, the model is more than a mere representation of the design in a three-dimensional computer graphic. Embedded within the design programs are rules that define each of the components’ relation to the other components. Continue reading “Integrated Project Delivery: Changing the Insurance Landscape”