ProNetwork News Archives - Page 3 of 4

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”

The Construction Contract: 3 Essential Rules

By Lynda

For design professionals, it’s good business to have a solid, fair contract in place before you begin work on a project. So, what are the three essential rules of putting together a construction contract? Our January 2013 ProNetwork News newsletter has the answer:

In the construction world, the contract rules the parties. It is the blueprint (pun intended) that says what you can be sued for, when you can sue the other party, and what your damages will be. If you do not have any written contract, the law presumes certain things that you may not want it to presume. Therefore, you must treat the contract seriously, and consider these three essential rules.

Put all agreements in writing
Negotiate or strike through unfair or one-sided terms
Deal with discrepancies between the Proposal for Services and the Contract

(1) Put all agreements in writing

Design professionals who rely on “handshake” or “gentlemen’s agreements” are playing a game of Russian roulette. One bad project, and you’ll wish that you had a well-written, reviewed and negotiated contract.

Written contracts are crucial to enforcing binding agreements once the dirt begins to turn. Memories fade, records are lost, and key employees leave. Having all the crucial terms in writing eliminates the need to argue over how changes are handled, how compensation issues are dealt with, and how disputes are decided.

(2) Negotiate or strike through unfair or one-sided terms

While a written contract is important, it is almost better to have no written contract than to have a poorly negotiated, unfair, or unclear written contract. Continue reading “The Construction Contract: 3 Essential Rules”

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”

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”

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.

The Impact of Sub Consultants in the Design Build Process

By Lynda

The Perspective of the Fire Protection Engineer

Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a collaborative alliance of people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that harnesses the talents and insights of all participants. Its aim is to optimize project results, increase value to the owner, reduce waste and maximize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication, and construction. The most popular method of IPD is Design-Build, one of the most significant trends in design and construction in the U.S. today.

The Design-Build Team works under a single contract with the project owner to provide design and construction services: one entity, one contract, one unified flow of work from initial concept through completion. It consists of many players, including the General Contractor, Architect, Engineering Consultants, and a variety of sub contractors. Collectively, the team has the knowledge and expertise to complete a project from start to finish and each team member is equally important in the outcome of the project.

The role of the specialty sub-consultant is no different. For example, the Fire Protection Engineer (FPE) is a critical member of the Design-Build Team, and provides comprehensive input and guidance on all aspects of fire and life safety for the project. This includes, but is not limited to, building code analysis, water supply, smoke control, fire department access, exiting, and an analysis of the active and passive fire protection systems.

From an FPE’s perspective, the design-build process can be broken down into four separate and distinct phases: the teaming phase, the pre-proposal phase, post-award phase, and the construction phase.

Teaming Phase

The client should understand the value of the FPE in the teaming phase and that communicating with the key individuals responsible for selecting the team is a priority. Generally, the people responsible for selecting team members are the general contractor’s project manager, project estimator or the project architect. They may or may not be familiar with the value that the FPE provides so it is important to reaffirm the FPE’s role. Other disciplines can contribute to fire protection and life safety, but none of them take the total fire protection and life safety perspective that an FPE does. Continue reading “The Impact of Sub Consultants in the Design Build Process”

Just a Rabbit? Small Projects Can Bite

By Lynda

Who doesn’t love a good Monty Python reference? With our latest ProNetwork Newsletter, Just a Rabbit? Small Projects Can Bite, we’ve proven that the classic moments in Monty Python and the Holy Grail can be made analogous to anything, even insurance. Or, more accurately in this case, to potential professional liability claims:

“King Arthur and his knights approach a cave known to be guarded by a ferocious beast. Upon seeing that the beast is but a wee rabbit, they let down their guards, proceed forward and are savagely attacked. Was the mistake having approached the cave at all or having done so without anticipation of the risk and use of appropriate protection? I sometimes ask the same question of design professionals who undertake small fee projects and unhappily receive large claims. But it has always been true that little projects can generate big claims, particularly where we let informality replace careful practice and appropriate documentation. In a troubled economy, a/e’s want to take the work and no responsible lawyer should tell you to minimize your risk by eliminating your work. Take the work but don’t skimp on process, procedures and gut feelings in contract negotiations and documentation, even if done less formally.

Just a Rabbit

“Like King Arthur’s knights, I have frequently heard that the project was just a rabbit, or just a slab on grade, or just a retaining wall, or just a room addition, or just a (fill in the blank). Insurance statistics prove that smaller firms do not necessarily get smaller claims, nor do smaller projects necessarily generate only small claims. A modest structural engineering engagement for balcony maintenance on a condominium building can bring in modest fees. When one of the balconies collapses or defects become apparent in 350 identical units with 350 separate plaintiffs, the defense and repair costs can be astronomical. The same can be true for a small church addition, with the church school remaining open during construction.

Just a Contract

“Aside from legalities, written contracts serve two important practical purposes. First, before work begins, the contract serves as a discussion outline with which a client can be educated about what you do for a living, what they have to give you in order for you to do the work, what work you have in mind and, equally important, what work is not included. All of these topics are much more easily and less emotionally discussed before anyone has started working and before a problem has arisen.

“I frequently receive calls about contracts just as the a/e is finishing Construction Documents and realizes either that nothing has been paid to date or that a risky project is about to go out for bid. This is not ideal, but very common, and still better than having the discussion after CDs are out or a problem has arisen. I also frequently receive calls after the contract is signed, work is proceeding and could I just take a quick look at the contract, because it is “just a room addition” or similar small project? Once signed, there is little I can do but warn the a/e of the teeth on that rabbit.

“Contracts serve a second important purpose as well – to tell a third party (judge, jury, arbitrator, Grand Inquisitor) what the parties thought about the scope of services, risks, rewards and the deal before they got to court. If you show up to court with a contract calling you “contractor,” saying that you will perform your services to the “highest, best” standards of care and that you intended to “ensure” a successful project, you will be hard pressed to proclaim otherwise, even if Mrs. Justaroomaddition was a little flaky and Mr. Justaroomaddition employed his brother-in-law to do some of the work. You will also create insurance coverage problems for the claim, perhaps ending up with two lawyers and two lawsuits instead of one of each. Use the same scrutiny of contract language for your small projects that you use for your large projects, because the same words can cause problems regardless of size of the work.”

Visit our website to continue reading this newsletter. You may download the full PDF version here.

ProNetwork News is the latest value-added resource produced by a/e ProNet. Each monthly edition includes an informative, timely article relevant to the design industry and authored by an industry expert. Contact your a/e ProNet broker for early access to these excellent 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. Eric is an active speaker and prolific author on the subject of construction litigation and the liability of the design professional.

Your Company’s Auto Liability – What’s Covered? What’s Not?

By Lynda

Other than Professional Liability claims, Auto Liability claims are the largest exposure faced by Architecture and Engineering firms.

If your design firm is small to mid-sized, often “a standard BOP (Business Owner’s Policy) is sufficient to meet your property and casualty coverage needs. A BOP combines the basic coverage requirements a small to medium sized business owner would need in a package.” Those insurance companies that understand the specialized needs of design firms sometimes combine certain coverage enhancements within their standard BOP. These enhancements can include extended coverage for architectural models, a waiver of subrogation (as is often required by project Owners during contract negotiations), and even some limited Auto Liabilty coverage.

“If your firm does not own any autos, the BOP can usually include ‘Hired and Non-Owned’ auto liability coverage. This would pay for damages to a third party, on behalf of your company, if an employee causes an accident while using a rented car or the employee’s own car while on company business. This addresses liability to others, but what about damage to the rented car? Some but not all insurers will provide this protection in a BOP; it’s usually referred to as Hired Physical Damage coverage.”

Our latest ProNetwork Newsletter, Your Company’s Auto Liability – What’s Covered? What’s Not?, focuses on the necessity of this coverage. A coverage which, if both architect/engineer and broker aren’t careful, can be overlooked at renewal time.

What does Hired Physical Damage cover? And why/when would you need this coverage?

Your star employees requests permission to attend a conference hosted by your state professional society. The conference is about 200 miles away. Public transportation isn’t an option; therefore, with an eye toward keeping expenses down, your employee decides to rent a car to drive to and from the event in one day. He asks you about taking out the rental car company’s insurance coverage. You mean to call your insurance broker, but, pressed for time, you decide that the BOP must cover this and you know that the extra insurance from the rental company would cost anywhere between $15 and $50 for the day.

Tragically, on the way home, your employee swerves to avoid some large debris in the roadway and inadvertently hits an oncoming car with a young adult driver and three co-workers who were headed home from a client’s golf outing. No one is killed, and fortunately your employee walks away unharmed. The other four, however, are not as lucky. All four are hospitalized, miss time from work, and require significant rehabilitation. Both vehicles suffer total loss.

To read about the outcome of this “doomsday scenario,” and to understand how Hired Physical Damage coverage can help, download the full PDF version of our newsletter here.

About the Author: Barbara Sable is Assistant Vice President for RLI’s Professional Services Group. She is responsible for developing the content of RLI’s risk management programs and addressing the day-to-day needs of policyholders. RLI is an a/e ProNet Platinum Sponsor.