Anyone recognize the photo to the left? If you are of the Millennial generation, this is a quaint thing called a public pay phone. They used to be everywhere. Imagine, not having a cell phone to keep you in constant contact with Big Brother…………. [the good old days].
As you may be able to tell from the fact that the receiver is hanging down, this phone has seen better days.
What does this have to do with construction? Everything. Just because something is done one way– even for years, or decades– doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Just as you learn new technical skills and change your designs, you should also update and modernize your office practices.
What do I mean by office practices? How you open a project. Whether or not you get a contract in writing (you should). How you keep and store project files both during and after project completion. You should also modernize and update your contracts. Still using 1997 AIA documents? Maybe it’s time to step it up to the 2007 forms. Have a custom “terms and conditions” contract? When was the last time you reviewed it with your lawyer? Laws change just as construction techniques change.
A little planning now could save you in legal fees and headaches later on, in the dreaded discovery phase of a lawsuit. Just because you’ve always done things a certain way, doesn’t mean you should always keep them the same. After all, when was the last time you saw a public pay phone?
Your turn. What are your standard operating procedures? Do you know how your project files and emails are saved by each employee? Do you know if your employees know your SOP? And, you do have a written contract, right?
Phone booth in the Countryside by Melissa Brumback.
The newest version of the LEED ratings system, LEED v4, has officially been released. For a comparison of the major changes between LEED 2009 and LEEDv4, check out this downloadable form from the USGBC.
As the folks at Schinnerer’s pointed out, there is one major change that is fraught with peril for design professionals– the requirement for increased transparency concerning the composition and performance requirements of composition materials.
While design firms always had a level of responsibility for ongoing product research, the lack of standardized, affirmative industry data made it difficult for design firms and project owners to assess the impact of building materials on human health.As with many aspects of sustainability in design and construction, the danger to design firms is likely to come from self-inflicted perils. When a firm accepts responsibility to “ensure that a project meets its goals by using the best products that align with project requirements,” it is essentially giving the project owner a guarantee that is both beyond the firm’s control and uninsurable by any insurance carried by a firm.
What is an architect or engineer to do? NOT make guarantees. That’s the easiest way to avoid potential problems and lawsuits down the road.
Inform your client that any green design guarantees may cause an otherwise covered claim to be denied by your errors & omissions insurance carrier. Show them this post, or the Victor O. Schinnerer (CNA) blog article. Whatever you do, do not make guarantees related to green design.
Your turn. What has been your experience educating clients concerning green “guarantees” and the uninsurable nature of any such contract provisions? Share in the comments section.
Today, we have a guest post by on of my comrades in crime (that is, a fellow construction law blogger), Chris Hill. Here’s his official bio: Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP is Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Chris authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals.
First of all, thanks again to Melissa for letting me post at her fine blog. She’s one of the more knowledgeable and cool Tarheels I know (and this is coming from a Blue Devil!). Now, on with the show.
As those who read my Construction Law Musings blog on a regular basis know, I am a huge proponent of getting a knowledgeable attorney involved in your construction contracting business early on. While we construction lawyers are generally seen as last resorts, we can actually be helpful and (dare I even say it?) save you money. How, you may ask, can paying a construction lawyer that ostensibly is only there when you have a claim actually save you money? Well, as you may have gathered by the title of this guest post, I’m going to tell you.
Two words: Disaster avoidance.
Litigation is a money, time and emotion draining process for those that don’t have the particular odd propensity of the litigator that makes them actually enjoy trials. Litigation takes money from the bottom line because no business this side of a cigarette or pharmaceutical company can do business planning to sue or be sued. For that reason, litigation cannot be treated as overhead and even in the case where you could get a judgment for any fees that you may spend, you are still out the cash and even then may never recover on the judgment. A contractor cannot make money through litigation (at least in my experience).
Even in the case where you are “right” and “should never lose” there is risk in court. Juries, arbitrators and judges sometimes go the other way. These are humans. They are fallible and in many ways unpredictable. Litigation is (and should be) a last resort.
The best way to avoid this result is a good contract and good advice from those of us who have seen the results of litigation on numerous occasions and that therefore know how to avoid it. Everything from the proper claim and notice procedures to a well scoped project are necessities up front. Aside from the “common sense” issues that you as a business person will see coming, an attorney can see the picky “traps” that are there and are counterintuitive. For instance, Virginia, unlike many other states, allows the waiver of mechanic’s lien rights in a contract. You wouldn’t want to miss this thinking that you “knew” that such a clause was unenforceable. [Editor's Note: By comparison, in NC, such a waiver in advance is against public policy].
Much like your bi-annual visits to the dentist (yes, I compared my profession to one that is almost as popular), the relatively small expense of early review of your contracts and business practices can go a long way toward avoiding surprises and disastrous expenses later. In short, and as you learned in kindergarten, doing it right the first time is always easier than fixing the problem later.
My final advice: Add a lawyer to your team of advisers, you’ll be glad you did.
Thanks, Chris, for another fine post. And I completely agree: the number of hours spent on claims will vastly supersede the small cost for most companies/Firms to properly prepare and vet their contracts and proposals. Chris and I welcome your comments, questions, and thoughts!
Today I’m guest posting over on Construction Law Musings. My post, entitled “You Mean They Can Do That?” discusses the fact that there are different legal hurdles that can present challenges to your Architecture or Engineering Firm when you venture across state lines.
As I state in the post, just as licensing issues and building codes differ, so too do the laws. Your best defense? A good offense. Get help specifically tailored to the new state up front so you won’t get pinched later on. In other words, don’t be a cheapskate!
Thoughts? Comments? Questions? Share in the comments below.
Photo (c) Jan Andersen
Adding an “Additional Insured” in the Professional Services Agreement: an exercise in futility! (law note)
As an architect or engineer, you may be asked to sign a contract that has a requirement of adding the Owner (or Contractor, in a design-build project) to your own insurance as an “additional insured”. This is usually a fall out of the fact that the Owner is treating you like a contractor and using “stock” contract language. It is not appropriate, nor sometimes even possible, to add the Owner to your professional liability policy.
This is beacuse professional liability insurance only provides coverage for “professional services”. That is, if it is even possible to buy such coverage, it won’t work to avoid any risks the Owner is seeking to avoid, because the Owner is not providing licensed architectural or engineering services on the Project.
In fact, because of the way professional liability policies are generally written, naming the project Owner as an additional insured essentially voids any coverage for the owner for your Firm’s design errors & omissions.
What should you do with a stubborn Owner who insists he wants to be an additional insured under your E&O policy? Explain the facts to him, and point out he is risking voiding coverage all together. Tell him to call me, or point out this post to him. Also, several insurance brokers, agents, and companies have simple one or two page information sheets that you can provide to the Owner to help with his education.
Remember, having an “Additional Insured” in an Errors & Omissions policy is a true exercise in futility. It may not be what the Owner wants to hear, but such is life!
Question time: have you ever been asked to add an Owner to your E&O insurance? How did you handle it? Share in the comments section, below.
And if you haven’t already, be sure to download your free white paper on the 7 Critical Mistakes that Architects & Engineers make– it’s in the box on the top right hand side of the blog.