ENR’s Top 500, the Economy, and Lawsuit Fever

Engineering News-Record logo

[This article was originally published on May 5, 2011]

Engineering News-Record (ENR) has released its annual list of the largest 500 design firms in the United States.  The list is based on design revenue generated by the firms, and covers both public and privately-held companies.

The bad news?  According to ENR, overall design revenue of the top 500 firms ($79.8 billion in 2010) was down 0.2% from 2009.  I know my clients have been hit hard.

One thing that construction lawyers see in down markets is more lawsuits.  Whereas in good times people will let something go to move on to their next project, in slow times contractors and owners sometimes look for a scape-goat.  That scape-goat, more often than not, is an insurance-carrying design firm.  Sad, but true.  Now, more than ever, make sure that you are practicing good risk avoidance, documenting everything, and communicating thoroughly.

There is some good news:  “There is a general feeling among the Top 500 firms that the markets will recover over the next 12 months.”  Let’s hope they are right.

What do you think?  Will the market improve this year?  How is your company weathering the economic storm? 

Spend Less Time with Your Lawyer with these Tips (Tue Tip)

“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.  The next best time is now.”  ~Chinese Proverb

————————————

If you haven’t yet acted to streamline your contracts and your new client procedures, do so now.  Unless, that is, you like spending time with your lawyer.  Lawsuits take time and money.  Avoid them (and your lawyer) through good risk avoidance practices.

Last year I wrote a post on 6 Ways to Limit Risk through effective use of contracts on your Projects.   Included in that list were such tips as:

  • Always, always, always use a contract for each new project.  (Verbal agreements are very hard to prove in Court).   Without a written contract, you are trusting yourself to laws you may not agree with or giving up valuable protections.
  • Get your contract reviewed by your insurance carrier.  Insurance check-ups through your agent or broker are usually free.  Why risk it?
  • Have your contract reviewed by your attorney.  ( I happen to know someone who does this regularly for her clients.)
  • Establish a new client protocol.  Make sure all new clients sign proposal or engagement letters.  Document now; worry less later.

These are all extremely important ways to minimize your risk.  Of course, if you are reading this blog, I recognize that I am probably preaching to the choir.  But it is worth repeating.  Just do it.

Do you have procedures that minimize your company’s risk?  Tell me in the comment section, below, what has worked for you.

If you need help creating or revising your contracts or client protocols, drop me an email at mbrumback@rl-law.com 

Photo: (c) Freephoto.com via Creative Commons License.

Certificate of Merit to sue architects or engineers? (Tue Tip)

[note: this article was originally posted April 5, 2011.  As of September 4, 2025, there is no requirement for a Certificate of Merit in North Carolina, but things can change, so stay tuned]

You know how they say the best laid plans can go awry?  Just as unforeseen issues pop up in construction, they also pop up in the practice of law.  So, while it is still Tuesday, I apologize for the late hour of my post.

I bring you good tidings, despite my lateness.  Right now, in the North Carolina General Assembly, is a proposed bill that would require a Certificate of Merit to be filed in civil litigation against an architect, engineer, or a design firm.  If it passes, this would require that an unbiased, third party (who is also a licensed professional) has reviewed the claim and believes it has merit.

boy holding certificate of merit

This boy has his certificate of merit: will lawsuits against architects and engineers require the same?

Such a pre-lawsuit requirement  has long been a right that doctors enjoy.  Now, there may a chance for architects and engineers to also enjoy protection from otherwise frivolous lawsuits.

The bill has been introduced, had its first reading, and has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.  While the bill is a long way from passage, it is a good sign that the public recognizes too often professionals are the targets in lawsuits simply because of their “deep pockets” (really!) or their insurance coverage.

(h/t to Kathryn Westcott, ACEC-NC Executive Director)

Photo: (c) John Dolan via Flickr/Creative Commons License.

Why should a Designer worry about the Contractor’s insurance issues?

Insurance: not just for Geckos anymore

You may wonder why you, as the designer of record, should care about the insurance coverage of the contractor on your construction projects.  After all, that is an issue between the contractor and the owner, right?  Not so fast.  Recent court cases addressing whether or not commercial general liability (CGL) policies provide insurance coverage for a contractor’s poor workmanship can create problems for architects and engineers.

Since architects and engineers usually have errors & omissions policies (and you do have E&O coverage, right?), they may be the only ones with “deep pockets” should litigation arise over construction defects.   The take-away?  It *is* your business to make sure that the contractors on your projects have sufficient resources to pay for construction defects.  It is also in your best financial interest to ensure that you are only working with top-notch, quality contractors. 

The insurance folks at Victor O. Schinnerer & Company recommend:

More than ever, design professionals should use sound risk management practices when selecting new projects—especially condo projects. Design professionals should insist upon providing full construction phase services and should urge developers to retain contractors using qualifications-based selection procedures. 

I wholeheartedly concur.

Questions?  comments on how Builder CGL policy issues are relevant to your design risks?  Drop me a line.

————————–

Photo: “Geico Gecko”  by Scott Kinmartin 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.