Professional Liability Archives - Page 4 of 10

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.

Podcast Love: The Entrepreneur Architect

By Lynda

Since 12:01 a.m. on Thursday morning, some of us have resolved to run a 5K by Easter, or to hike a few of Colorado’s famous “Fourteeners,” or to try every brewpub in Portland before 2015 is out. Some have decided to spend more quality time with our families, or learn how to use a food processor, or solve the NYT Sunday crossword at least once without help. These are all excellent personal goals for the new year. In case you’re looking for similar inspiration for New Year’s Resolutions for your business, we thought we’d point you to Mark LePage’s The Entrepreneur Architect Podcast.

The following is an excerpt from the blog post accompanying a recent episode titled Top 10 Ways Architects Can Earn More Money:

“As a requirement for licensure, registered architects are responsible for the health, safety and welfare of every occupant in every project we design. Like any small business, architects must pay the typical operating expenses required to remain buoyant, such as utilities, professional service fees, consultants’ fees, insurances and several other overhead expenditures. But wait… for architects, there’s more. To protect us from the liabilities inherent in our responsibilities as licensed professionals, most architects also purchase an additional Professional Liability insurance policy costing several thousand dollars each year.

“Then, there’s that little thing called profit. Every business, including architecture firms (yes, its true!), must earn a profit. It’s one of the rules to “the game”. In order to continue pursuing our success as architects, we must not only cover our expenses and take home a salary, we must make enough to reinvest into the business.

“Most sole proprietors and small firms I know, struggle to meet the minimum requirements of operation. Forget about profit.

“Simply stated… Architects just don’t make enough money.

“On this episode of The Entrepreneur Architect Podcast, I am sharing my top 10 ways architects can earn more money.”

New year; new bottom line. We hope this resource helps you in your endeavors this year. All the best to our readers in 2015!

About the Podcaster:

Mark R. LePage, AIA, a licensed architect in the State of New York, is the Partner in Charge of Operations at Fivecat Studio Architecture, a leading residential architecture firm located in Westchester County, New York (about 40 minutes north of New York City). Mark and his wife, architect Annmarie McCarthy, launched Fivecat Studio in 1999 at the age of 29 with no money and no clients. Together they have grown the regional firm to a staff of six, managing projects worth more than $10 million. Mark is the founder of Entrepreneur Architect, this online education resource inspiring architects to build better businesses. He launched the blog in 2007 as a personal project to document ideas for business success. In 2012, Mark relaunched Entrepreneur Architect at EntreArchitect.com and introduced the The Entrepreneur Architect Podcast. Working to become an influential force in the profession, Mark’s mission is to teach sole proprietors, small firm architects and students the importance of business success in the profession of architecture.

a/e ProNet’s Fall Meeting Kicks Off in Chicago

By Lynda

Dozens of a/e ProNet members from across the country are gathering in Chicago this week for the annual fall meeting. They will be joined by representatives from several top tier professional liability insurance companies and a few major design industry organizations, including the AIA, NSPE, and ACEC.

Over the course of three days, members will receive presentations from the following insurance carriers: Beazley, Ironshore, HCC, Victor O. Schinnerer, Axis, Catlin, Hanover, RLI, All Risks, Liberty, Travelers, Navigators and Arch. These presentations will help inform the specialist brokers of a/e ProNet about industry trends, policy language changes, new coverage opportunities, and the like. It will also give our members a chance to ask questions and make suggestions pertinent to their own clients.

Along with insurer presentations, there will also be ample opportunity for the brokers to network with one another, alerting the group to trends around the country and problem solving in the collective.

To open the week, the Board of Directors will meet, and to close, Kent Holland of Construction Risk will present to the membership on the second edition of a/e ProNet’s Risk Management and Contract Guide for Design Professionals.

Construction Observation: Important Risk Management Service

By Lynda

Construction observation is a powerful weapon for architects and engineers (A/E) in their risk management arsenal. Certain clients understand the benefits when A/E firms offer construction phase services. However, driven by slow economic conditions, many clients are asking firms to do more, with less, including reducing or eliminating construction phase services. Other clients decide they will administer the construction contract themselves or decide to use a third party instead of the A/E firm. Clients have also held the A/E to a higher standard of care when providing construction observation services. How do these actions affect A/E firms?… It significantly increases the A/E’s risk and liability exposures.

Construction Phase Risks

Details in design documents cannot anticipate every contingency that may occur during the construction phase. If the A/E firm of record is not retained to provide clarification of the plans and specifications the risk of misinterpretation of the contract documents increases. Bad decisions can lead to project confusion, delays, increased costs, disputes and claims between the owner and the A/E.

The exposure of the A/E is increased due to certain owners and contractors asserting that the designer has a similar responsibility of the contractor for discovering all defects on the project. Based on this distortion and unrealistic expectation of construction observation services, owners and contractors have stated the A/E should be a guarantor of the contractor’s work. These expectations dramatically increase the A/E’s standard of care and risks associated with construction phase services. Court decisions have ruled in Owners’ favor holding that the A/E has a duty to guard the owner against all non-conforming work on the project, although much of that work was completed when the firm was not present on-site. Members of the plaintiff’s bar continue efforts to hold the A/E accountable for this higher standard of care for construction phase services. Continue reading “Construction Observation: Important Risk Management Service”

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.

Waiver of Subrogation: A Valid Defense for Architects and Engineers?

By Lynda

An attorney is asked to defend an architect in a claim for defective design of a geothermal HVAC system, which allegedly caused an explosion and several million dollars of property damage to an owner’s manufacturing facility. He reviews the file, making notes. The plaintiff is the owner’s casualty insurer, which has paid the claim and sued the general contractor in subrogation. It’s actually the general contractor who has named the architect as a third-party defendant, seeking contribution and indemnity. All sorts of interesting defenses present themselves: statute of repose (work was completed years ago), no common law indemnity claim, no negligence…but what about the contracts for the original project?

Contained within the AIA A201 General Conditions is a boiler plate “waiver of subrogation” clause. It appears to bar subrogation claims for damages covered by insurance on the property. The owner’s carrier picked up the tab, so how can it sue in subrogation now? Are these waivers of subrogation provisions enforceable?

Since the project is in North Carolina, our inquiry starts with a 1987 North Carolina Court of Appeals decision, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Freeman-White Associates, Inc. The case involves an architect who performed design services for a Charlotte, North Carolina hospital. During construction, a wing of the hospital collapsed, causing significant property damage. The hospital’s insurer paid the claim under an “all risk” policy and then sued the architect in subrogation. The agreements between the parties to the construction incorporated the AIA A201 General Conditions, including its standard waiver of subrogation clause, and the clause was applied by the trial court to dismiss the complaint against the architect under Rule 12(b)6. Unfortunately, on appeal, the court of appeals declined to enforce the waiver of subrogation provision and reversed the trial court’s dismissal.

The rationale? The appeals court held that because the contract required the architect to provide coverage for its own errors and omissions, the contract was susceptible to two interpretations: 1) the true intent of the contracting parties was that the owner would waive all claims for damages against which the owner had insured itself; or 2) the contracting parties intended for the architect to insure against its own negligence in order to negate the waiver as to losses caused by the architect’s negligence.

Not a great result for the client. However, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Freeman-White Associates, Inc. is a 1987 decision. Surely there has been some better law made since then…

Waiver of Subrogation in General in Construction Contracts

“Subrogation is the substitution of [one person or entity] to the position of another, an obligee, whose claim he has satisfied…” Thus, in the insurance context, the doctrine of subrogation allows an insurer who has indemnifed its insured to step into the shoes of its insured and sue any at-fault party which may have caused the damages. The right of subrogation may arise by equitable, common law principles, or by virtue of any express assignment in the insuring agreement. The policies underlying subrogation are appealing: 1) it feels “fair” that the ultimate liability for a loss should land on the wrongdoer, not an insured’s insurer; 2) in theory, subrogation should keep insurance premiums down; and 3) parties remain incentivized to avoid mistakes. In addition, fault-based claims in the midst of construction can cause delays and increased hostility during the project. Costly litigation would ensue, the avoidance of which was one of the purposes for which the property insurance was originally obtained. Continue reading “Waiver of Subrogation: A Valid Defense for Architects and Engineers?”

Important Protection for Licensed Individuals

By Lynda

We were excited to see that AIA Florida picked up this timely article by Mark Jackson of Jackson Collinsworth Johnson, an a/e ProNet member. Hope you find it helpful, too!

There are two important contract clauses that design professionals should include with every client contract. The first clause provides protection to individuals and the second limits the firm’s liability.

Individual Protection

The first clause we recommend gives individual protection for your licensed professionals. In 2013, the State of Florida signed a law relating to design professionals known as the Fairness in Liability legislation. Beginning July 1, 2013, design firms are now able to negotiate contracts that protect their professional employees from being sued individually by their clients.

The new law grants design professional employees immunity from liability for economic damages resulting from negligence occurring during the course and scope of a professional services contact. The law does require that the design firm maintain professional liability insurance as required under the contract.

The new law also extends to individuals the protection of contractual limitation of liability clauses. This comes four years after the courts ruled that individual professional employees were not protected by limitation of liability clauses in a contract. (Florida appellate court case Witt v. La Gorce Country Club, Inc., 34 Fla.L., Weekly D1161a)

Design professionals should take advantage of the benefits of this new law. Your contracts should be amended to include language that an individual employee cannot be held liable for negligence. The law has five conditions for this protection to apply:

1. The contract is made between the design firm and the client.
2. Individual employees are not to be named as a party to the contract. All professional services contracts need to be made between the client and the business entity.
3. The design firm must maintain Professional Liability insurance, as required by contract.
4. The contract contains a prominent statement, in uppercase font that is at least five point sizes larger than the rest of the text, that an individual employee or agent may not be individually liable for negligence.
5. Any damages are solely economic in nature and the damages do not extend to personal injuries or property not subject to the contract.

To continue reading, download the PDF here…

Are You Accepting Too Much Liability on Your Construction Project?

By Lynda

The following is a re-post from the Southeast Construction Law Blog:

Contractors, subcontractors, and A&E firms all face differing levels of liability on construction projects. Managing that exposure is a key to maintaining profitability and ensuring your business is protected.

One issue I consistently see in my practice is companies taking too much liability for their scope of work on a project. For example, what should the liability of a subcontractor be who has a small $25,000 subcontract on a $15 million project? Should the subcontractor be liable for any and all damages?

Many subcontract agreements state that subcontractors are responsible for “any and all costs” caused by a subcontractor’s delay or interference with any portion of the work. While each party should be liable for damages it causes, this determination is never as clear as it seems.

General contractors (and sometimes owners) often control the timing, means, and methods of how a subcontractor performs its work. In those situations, it is difficult for me to explain to a subcontractor that it is liable for everything it does on site. Even so, many subcontractors’ feet are held to the fire for delay costs in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollar range when their contract was initially very small.

Architecture and engineering firms face a similar dilemma. Many times A&E firms are brought into lawsuits in the millions of dollars when their scope of work may have been small. I have seen a civil engineer sued for $12 million when it performed a $1,600 staking job on a project.

In addition, A&E firms face a different challenge. Even if an architect or engineer prevails on the claim, the A&E firm has likely spent thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees, all chargeable to the A&E under the deductible in the Professional Liability Insurance policy. Continue reading “Are You Accepting Too Much Liability on Your Construction Project?”

Review of the Owner/Design Professional Agreement from The Design Professional’s Perspective

By Lynda

This article reviews some of the issues addressed in a standard Owner/Design Professional Agreement, outlines concerns from the Design Professional’s perspective, and discusses how the Design Professional can reduce liability on a project and ensure equitable adjustments to the contract price and schedule for changed or additional design services. The agreement contemplated by this article is one to be used as part of a traditional design-bid-build approach.

Standard of Care

When trying to hold a Design Professional liable for negligence, one of the first legal considerations is the standard of care owed. Absent an express contractual warranty, the law does not require the Design Professional to guarantee that the design will be perfect. Rather, the standard of care that the courts will typically apply is that degree of care which a reasonably careful architect/ engineer would use under like circumstances. However, nothing prevents an Owner from seeking contractual language that increases the typical standard of care owed by the Design Professional to the level of an express warranty of the design; in fact, Owners frequently attempt to do so in their proposed agreements – and courts will enforce such language. This is a danger to the Design Professional, as it is possible that the increased standard of care could go beyond professional liability insurance coverage available to the Design Professional. Thus, the Design Professional should insist on the deletion of any such guarantee as unreasonable.

Similarly, a Design Professional should insist on the deletion of any proposed language that attempts to establish a fiduciary duty between the Design Professional and the Owner, as such language also results in an increased standard of care owed on the Project. Continue reading “Review of the Owner/Design Professional Agreement from The Design Professional’s Perspective”