New Energy Code for North Carolina (Tues Tip)

energy efficient light bulbs

Did you know that new energy-efficient building rules will be required for commercial and residential construction starting in March 2012?  The new rules, passed by the NC Building Code Council last week,  are designed to promote green buildings, lower consumers’ energy bills and cut the state’s carbon emissions. 

The News and Observer reports the vote came with a highly unusual requirement – orchestrated by homebuilders and   Gov. Bev Perdue’s office – that the council make amendments to the residential code that will offset the cost of    achieving the higher standards for homes.

(Thanks to North Carolina Construction News for highlighting this new regulation).

———————————–

Photo: “Bright Idea”  by Mike Bitzenhofer via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

Keeping your company in compliance with “The Man”

General Casey signing papers

Even Generals have to keep up with paperwork

As the year draws rapidly to a close, take some time to make sure that your company is in compliance with “the man.”  Whether your business is a Co., an Inc., an L.L.C., a P.A., or a P.L.L.C., you need to make sure that your business follows all applicable corporate formalities.  These include holding annual meetings, updating corporate minutes, and filing annual reports.  You need to ensure that your business is meeting all corporate formalities not just in the state where it is incorporated,  but also any other state in which the company is doing business.  Of course, it goes without saying that you need to also maintain proper professional licensing in each state in which you conduct business.

In addition to following governmental mandates, you should ensure that you are, in practice, keeping company money separate from personal finances and otherwise show that the corporation is more than “the mere instrumentality” of you as an individual.  If you fail to do so, you may be sued individually based on a “piercing the corporate veil” theory.  [There are many factors courts look at to make this determination, which include the domination/control of the corporate entity, inadequate capitalization, siphoning or commingling of funds with the dominant shareholder, and the absence of corporate records, among others].

As we discussed with the insurance check-up, you should also consider a yearly corporate check-up with your attorney to keep your corporation intact and your personal assets protected.  If you would like to discuss having such a corporate check-up, give me a ring.  And as always, your comments, thoughts, and questions are welcome in the comment section below.

_________________

Photo courtesy of U.S. Army.

Lead Generation – Best Practices (Tues Tip)

As 2010 is winding down, you may be ramping up your planning for a successful 2011.  If so, consider attending a free webinar tomorrow afternoon discussing “Best Practices” in lead generation.

  • What:  Best Practices in Lead Generation (by the Construction Marketing Association)
  • When:  Wednesday, December 15th at 1pm Eastern
  • How:  Register (for free) here

—————————————————————————————————–

Clipboard

 Also, if you have not yet had a chance to do so, please take my lightening quick, 10 question survey about this blog.  I’m closing the survey later this week, so this is your last chance to have your say!

————————–

Photo “Clipboard” by Schzmo via Wikimedia.

Time flies: Construction Law in North Carolina is 1 year old today!

candles on cake

One year ago today, I first put pen to paper fingers to keyboard and started this blog.  At the time, I had no idea of the magnitude of Pandora’s Box when I first opened it.  It has been a fun ride!  I’ve gotten to know many fine folks from across the country who share an interest in construction-related legal issues.

To my loyal readers– thanks for following along!  Please keep reading, and drop me a note to tell me what you like, what you dislike, what you wish I’d cover, and anything else.  I can take tough criticism, honest.

Here’s to making the second blogging year even better!

 —————————

Photo “Birthday Cake – Candles”  by jessica.diamond via Flickr/Creative Commons License.

Careful! Your contract may create uninsurable loss

 

Kent Holland
Kent Holland

Today’s Guest Post is by  J. Kent Holland, a construction lawyer located in Tysons Corner, Virginia,  with a national practice representing design professionals, contractors and project owners.  He is also founder & president of ConstructionRisk, LLC, a consulting firm providing consulting services to owners, design professionals, contractors and attorneys on construction projects.    His guest post is very timely, considering last week’s post on insurance check-ups for your business.   

 

Agreeing to Pay Reasonable Attorneys Fees as Part of Indemnification May Create Uninsurable Loss

 A question that is asked with increasing frequency is whether attorneys fees incurred pursuant to an indemnity clause are insurable where they are not incurred due to a duty to defend (i.e., paid on behalf of the indemnitee) but are instead paid after the litigation is complete and the indemnitor (e.g., engineer) is found liable for damages due to its negligence.  The short answer is that unless the court would have awarded the attorneys fees against the engineer in the absence of the contractual obligation to pay attorneys that was created by the indemnification provision, the attorneys fees will not be covered by the professional liability policy.  The contractual liability exclusion of the policy applies to such contractually created attorneys fees obligation.

A typical indemnification clause that includes payment of attorneys fees as part of indemnification rather than as part of a duty to defend is the following:

INDEMNIFICATION

The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless Owner, its  parent,  affiliates and their respective directors, officers and employees (“Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, suits, actions, judgments,  demands,  losses, costs, liability, damages, and expenses, of any kind (including reasonable attorneys fees)   for  injuries  to  persons  (including but not limited to death) or damage to property to the extent any  of the foregoing are caused by any negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, representatives, and  persons  for  whom  Consultant  is  legally responsible in  the performance of the Services.

Although this clause may look innocuous in that the indemnification is limited to negligence, it may nevertheless create uninsurable loss by virtue of the attorneys fees that are included in the indemnification.  Under American Jurisprudence, the courts do not award attorneys fees to the prevailing party unless the contract creates such a duty or unless there is some legal basis such as a civil statute that would establish the basis for the award of attorneys fees.

An insurance broker was recently asked by his client (an engineering firm) to consider the insurance ramifications of an indemnification clause somewhat similar to what was quoted above.  Instead of containing the reference to reasonable attorneys fee within its text, however, the clause included an additional sentence that stated:  “Consultant shall not have  an  obligation  to defend any person under this indemnity; however, Subconsultant  shall  have  liability  for reasonable  and necessary defense costs incurred by persons indemnified to the extent caused by Subconsultant’s  negligence.”

*          *          *          *          *          *

To avoid contractual liability for legal fees under the above-quoted clause that would not be covered by insurance, the broker recommended that the final sentence be revised to read as follows: “Consultant shall have liability for reasonable and necessary defense cost incurred by persons indemnified to the extent caused by Consultant’s negligence herein and recoverable under applicable law on account of negligence.”

I agree with the broker that, unless the award is limited to the sum “recoverable under applicable law on account of negligence,” the indemnity of legal costs is not fully insured. Specifically, an award of legal costs in favor of the indemnitee against the engineer that is based on the contractual indemnity alone is excluded from coverage by the contractual liability exclusion of the policy. The amount of the award that is made under applicable law respecting recovery of plaintiff’s legal costs, apart from the contractual indemnity, could be covered under the policy depending upon terms and conditions of the policy.

In other words, if a state has a law for recovery of plaintiff’s legal costs against the engineer, an award under that law based upon negligence  might be covered under the professional liability policy, but any part of an award of attorneys fees that results only from a contractual indemnity obligation to indemnify a plaintiff’s legal fees will run afoul of the contractual liability exclusion of the policy and, therefore, be excluded from coverage.

As previously stated, in the United States, the laws of the individual states do not provide, routinely, for an award of plaintiff’s legal costs. That is the genesis of contractual indemnity of legal costs. Contractual indemnity “fills in” what the law does not otherwise order. Likewise, that is the reason the engineer would limit the contractual indemnity to the sum that state law would award. The “fill in” to enforce the contractual indemnity is not a liability that would have attached to the “insured” in the absence of such contract, warranty, guaranty or promise, to quote from the contractual liability exclusion contained in one insurance carrier’s policy.  For the reasons explained in this article, a party that agrees to indemnify another should beware that agreeing to reimburse the indemnitee for attorneys fees will likely create an uninsurable risk where those fees would not have been awarded by a court in the absence of the contractual obligation.

 

Questions, comments, thoughts?  Kent and I welcome your comments below.