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.

 

 

Arbitrators are not King Solomon?

whoa signAfter my recent post on the pros and cons of court vs. arbitration, I was contacted by the American Arbitration Association (AAA).    They told me that, contrary to what is a widely held belief about panels “splitting the baby,” their internal studies actually show that is not, in fact, the case.   The summary of their findings is worth reading.

Now, I don’t know the particulars of their study protocol, and AAA is certainly not a disinterested party, but the numbers are impressive.  Perhaps AAA arbitration panels, at least, are not King Solomon.

Do you have a AAA arbitration experience?  Share it in the comments below.

————–

Photo “whoa” by stgermh via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

The Attorney on your Shoulder (Tues Tip)

cat on shoulderI once had a rather abrasive (okay, mean) driver’s education teacher.  He had to drive around all day, risking life and limb, with student drivers who had no clue what they were doing.  I think that would make anyone a little abrasive, so really, I don’t find fault.  However, one tip that he taught me was truly one of those “tips you remember”.  He told all his students that, no matter what else they took away from his class, they should imagine that he was always hovering at their shoulder, and they should drive accordingly. 

How does my drivers’ education teacher relate to construction law issues?

Just like my driver’s ed teacher’s tip for safe driving, today’s Tip is a simple one.  Indeed, perhaps you might even find it a bit silly.  But picture your attorney (and you do have one, right?) hovering over your shoulder when you go about the business of your work. 

Should I really write that offensive reply email while I’m so hot I could scream? Will this one day be used against me in a court of law?  Did I make sure to have a written contract before we started this project?  What should I do to avoid that costly mistake, and get that attorney off my shoulder?  If I set up documentation systems now, at the start of the project, and follow them consistently, will the attorney knock off the nagging?  You get the picture.  Plan for the worst and hope for the best, as they say. 

No one plans to be in a lawsuit.  But it happens.  Make sure that if it happens to you, you have the best chance of a favorable outcome.

If you would like to continue receiving these tips, please sign up for email delivery direct to your inbox.

——————————–

Photo “Shoulder cat sitting” by Oceanic (Drew Robinson) via Flickr/Creative Commons License.

Should I stay or should I go now? (Court vs. Arbitration)- Updated

gavelShould I stay or should I go now?
If I go there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
So come on and let me know!

Are you wondering whether Court or Arbitration should be made a standard part of your construction contracts?  With apologies in advance to The Clash, there is “trouble” to be found in either venue.

Some companies, and their lawyers, insist that American Aribtration Association (AAA) Arbitration is the only way to go.  Others prefer to take their chances in a local state court.  Who is right?  Neither, and both.  As with anything, there is a cost-benefit analysis that you should go through prior to making either a standard part of your construction contract.

Pluses and Minuses of Going to Court

If a dispute is brought in court, there is a standard, fully vetted set of statutes, case law, court rules, and procedures already in place.  A judge, unlike the typical arbitration panel, is generally more willing to consider defenses based on statue, such as the statute of limitations or the statute of repose.  Summary Judgment, in which a judge will (on occasion) grant a judgment for or against  a party without the necessity of the full blown jury trial, is possible.  Such dispositive, procedural rulings are extremely unlikely to be granted by an arbitration panel.

On the other hand, a court trial means a jury verdict.  Unless the parties agree to waive their right to a jury trial, your case will be decided by true laymen who may have never set foot on a construction site before, and who will not understand the RFI, change order, and pay app process.  Terms like “substantial completion,” “critical path,” and “standard of care” will be foreign to them.

I’ve seen some juries get it right, and I’ve seen some get it wrong.  Most jurors take their responsibilities extremely seriously and will try to apply the law as the judge instructs them.  But at the end of the day, you have people unfamiliar with industry standards determining your case.

Pluses and Minuses of Arbitration

Many standard construction contracts contain arbitration provisions, generally AAA Arbitration.  The typical arbitration includes a three member panel of experts (construction professionals, designers, construction attorneys) who hear the evidence and make a ruling.  That ruling has the full force of law.The reasoning behind such arbitration clauses is that industry professionals better understand the construction process, standards of care, and interrelationships on a complex construction project.  Theoretically, therefore, they are better able to determine the true root cause of damages or delay.

Arbitration is sometimes considered to be less expensive and less time consuming than a court trial.  The arbitration panel generally sets fairly loose procedural and evidentiary boundaries, and tends to allow into evidence things that might not meet the strict Rules of Evidence that a court would apply.  Some of these generalities, however, have not proven to be true in practice.  AAA Arbitration can be costly– the filing of a claim alone is costlier than typical court fees.  Case managers add a layer of bureaucracy to the process.   Arbitration panels also generally are more prone to “split the baby” in a close case.

Which is Better?

The answer to that question is a clear and concise, “it depends.”  It depends on the facts of your particular case, the jurisdiction you are in, the type of panel you may get, and numerous other things completely out of your control.  Consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to discuss the pros and cons of each, and which may be right for your particular situation.

Do you have experience with court or arbitration?  Personal preference?  I’d love to hear your thoughts on the subject in the comment section below.

UPDATE 10/13/2010:  The AAA responded to this article citing their internal studies showing arbitration panels do not often “split the baby”.  See more here

_______________

Photo “Courtroom One Gavel” by Joe Gratz via Flickr/Creative Commons license.

Liquidated Damages: what, when, & why

water dropWhat are Liquidated Damages?

Liquidated Damages are a sum which a party to a contract agrees to pay or a deposit he agrees to forfeit, if he breaks some promise.  In the construction realm, liquidated damages (or “LDs”) usually involve money damages for time delays on a construction project.    Typically, a contract will state that time is “of the essence” and that for every day past the scheduled completion date (as modified by change orders & directives) a set amount is due from the contractor to the owner.

When can you get liquidated damages? (or, when must you pay liquidated damages?)

Liquidated damages must be specified in the contract up front.  They should reflect the reasonable estimate of likely damages that will be incurred if the contractor fails to complete the project timely.

To be enforceable, the amount must have been arrived at by a good-faith effort to estimate in advance the actual damage that would likely ensue from the breach, and they cannot be deemed “penalties.”  Eastern Carolina Internal Medicine, P.A. v. Faidas,  149 N.C.App. 940,  564 S.E.2d 53 (2002).

Why?

The purpose of liquidated damages is to reasonably compensate the non-breaching party (typically, the owner for construction delays) which it will likely incur as a result of the breach (e.g., the extended completion date results in lost rent and increase finance charges).  Without the liquidated damages provision, the parties would be forced to argue about each alleged cost the owner incurred because of the delay.  With liquidated damages, the amount is known ahead of time which should (theoretically) lead to fewer arguments later.

When doesn’t the provision work?

Two words—concurrent delay.  If the owner is delaying the project (through, for example, failure to deliver/install owner-provided equipment), but the contractor is also behind on completion, the two delays may run at the same time—hence “concurrent delay”.  In such a situation it becomes difficult if not altogether impossible to separate delays and delay damages.  Of course, if the entire delay is owner-related, no liquidated damages can be assessed.

Take-away message

Liquidated damage provisions, if carefully and properly drafted, are enforced in North Carolina.  You should know your schedule requirements prior to signing on the dotted line and, if necessary, accelerate your work to complete on time.  If you are the owner, however, you also have responsibilities not to interfere with the schedule if you hope to have a chance at recovering liquidated damages from a contractor who delivers a project late.

Questions?  Comments?  Experience with the joys (and sorrows) of LDs?  Share in the comments below.

 __________________________

Photo “Water drop bouncing off the water surface” by konradc via Picasa/Creative Commons License.