Standard of Care Archives

“Brochurebiage”

By Lynda

Yes, “brochurebiage” is a word we made up. It refers to that optimistic and puffed‐up verbiage that can creep into a professional’s brochures or other promotional materials. Many people are rightfully proud of their past work and skill and need to sell that experience and ability to prospective clients. However, use such language with caution.

Licensed professionals promoting themselves as the best around can be an effective way to attract clients. The risk comes when they enter into a contract that refers to or incorporates language in promotional material because it could needlessly raise the standard of care. In California, while licensed professionals may hold themselves to a high personal standard, the default legal standard by which professional negligence or malpractice is evaluated is the standard of care of an average professional in the same field and community. This default standard of care is favorable for licensed professionals because it means to avoid liability, they do not need to be perfect. After all, who is?

This average standard of care can be modified however through contract. Professionals sometimes inadvertently do this when a contract refers to or incorporates a proposal or other promotional item that promises superlative services or the “highest standard of care.” Including a standard of care that goes beyond what is required by law unnecessarily raises the bar for performance and exposes the professional to a greater risk of liability if there are allegations that the work was anything less than perfect. Additional problems may arise because professional liability insurance typically covers the average standard of care, so a contract promising a higher standard might not be covered, which could leave the professional on the hook alone.

To minimize this risk, avoid exaggerated language that over‐promises in contracts. Rather than say a professional will provide the absolute best services, say they work hard to provide professional services that lead to successful projects. Show clients examples of superlative work. Finally, avoid contracts that refer to or incorporate promotional materials because that could unnecessarily raise the standard of care, or limit such incorporation only to the scope or fee portion of the proposal. Highlighting past success and emphasizing skill is necessary to generate business, but exercise caution and balance when using or referring to brochurebiage in contracts.

This article has been reprinted with permission from its authors, David E. Barker and Erin Dunkerly of Collins Collins Muir + Stewart LLP in California.

Nothing contained in this article should be considered legal advice. Anyone who reads this article should consult with an attorney before acting on anything contained in this or any other article on legal matters, as facts and circumstances will vary from case to case.

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”

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”