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.

 

 

Common Sense Tip: Don’t lose your cool when sued

Common Sense credit cardDespite the vast number of legal shows on television, as you might suspect:  getting sued is not cool.

Immediately, when threatened with litigation, it seems like everyone and everything is out to get you.  Allegations in complaints can cut deep.  You may want to just bury your head in the sand.  Don’t.  Problems denied can turn figurative mole hills into mountains.   Here are three common sense tips for dealing with the initial shock of being named in a lawsuit:

1.

Run, don’t walk, to your attorney.  If you have insurance coverage, talk to your agent immediately to report the loss so that a claims attorney can be assigned to your case.  Court deadlines are not something to be missed, and so you’ll want to get professional help on your team asap.

2.

Immediately begin to gather all documentation relating to the Project.  If you have regular paperwork or computer deletion/destruction policies, stop them at once.  Notify everyone in your company that litigation is pending (or threatened) and place holds from any automatic or scheduled deletion of documents. 

3.

Make lists.  Your attorney will need all sorts of information about the Project, even stuff you may not deem relevant.  Making lists can get your attorney up to speed quickly and efficiently.   Lists may include:

  • a general timeline of your involvement with the Project and any key dates (Notice to Proceed, Substantial Completion, First notice of defects, etc)
  • a list of the Project’s players; that is, all companies that you know worked on the Project, their role, and their key employees
  • a list of your employees that dealt with the Project in any capacity, their contact information, and, if they are no longer with your company, whether or not they left on good terms

Ever been in litigation?  Tips you wish you had known right away?  Comment below.

————————

Photo adapted from “common sense” by Benjamin Gray via Flickr/Creative Commons/Share Alike.

The Sticky Statute of Limitations in NC

sticky notesIf you are not a lawyer, but you play one on TV, you may have a passing understanding of the legal concept of a statute of limitations.  This is post is to provide you just a little more information about the concept, and how it applies to your North Carolina construction project.

What is a statute of limitations, and why is it important?

The Statute of Limitations is a time-barring statute which gives you a set time within which to bring an action (i.e., lawsuit) against another party.  If you do not bring your lawsuit within that period of time, the court will kick it to the curb.  The reasoning behind the statute of limitation (often, ironically, abbreviated as “SOL” in legal circles) is that people need to have some certainty in how long they can be sued for an event that happened in the past.  Witnesses die or forget, papers are destroyed, and in general it is extremely difficult to try a case years after the fact.  The law has, therefore, established a somewhat arbitrary deadline for when you can sue or be sued, and it is vital that you do not go past that deadline if you hope to bring a lawsuit.

What is the statute of limitations on a construction project?

The answer, as always, is:  it depends.  The statue of limitations is governed by whatever state’s law will apply to your case—usually, but not always, the state the project was built in.  The statute of limitations is also determined by what type of lawsuit you are trying to bring (or defend against).

 In North Carolina, the statute of limitations for most construction disputes (breach of contract, professional negligence, implied warranty of plans) is generally 3 years from the date time when you knew or should have known about the issue.   N.C. Gen. Stat §1-52.1  ABL Plumbing and Heating Corp. v.  Bladen Co  Board of Education, N.C. App. 623 S.E.2d 57 (2005). See also AIA A201 para. 13.7.   As always, there are exceptions.  If a contract is “under seal”, a claim can be brought for up to 10 years. (N.C. Gen. Stat. §1-47).

 If the contract involves merchandise and falls under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of limitations is 4 years. N.C. Gen. Stat §25-2-725.  However, where a defect in merchandise results in bodily injury or damage to real property, the shorter 3 year statute still applies.  Hanover Ins Co. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 106 N.C. App. 79, 415 S.E.2d 99 (1992). In Hanover, a defective HVAC unit caused a fire, which destroyed a building. The court held that the shorter 3 year statute of limitations applied because the defective merchandise caused damage to the real property.

Therefore, it is best practice to assume that the Courts will find that the statute starts running at the first inkling of a problem, and bring your action accordingly. Also, regardless of the length of any warranty period, contractors can still be liable until the statute of limitations period expires.

What happens to claims after the owner accepts the project?

Once a project has been accepted by an owner, the owner waives his right to claim damages for all but latent defects. Acceptance by the owner with knowledge of a defective performance may be deemed a waiver of the defective performance.

Where, however, the defect is unknown (or “latent”), the owner’s acceptance does not waive the defective performance. Tisdale v. Elliott, 13 N.C. App. 598, 186 S.E.2d 685 (1972).   If a defect is a “latent” defect, hidden or not readily discoverable, the statute of limitations starts running from the date of discovery. Under AIA A201 para 13.7, any statute of limitations is deemed to have accrued in any and all events not later than the date of Substantial Completion.   This section may shorten the statute of limitations in some cases of latent defects.

Can the Statute of Limitations be lengthened or shortened?

Yes.  But, as they say on television, “don’t try this at home.”  Carefully drafted agreements for a shorter or longer period of time can be executed.  Consult your attorney before you do so, however.  You may also want to check with your insurance carrier to make sure you have sufficient insurance coverage for a longer warranty period.

What if the parties are working together to fix construction problems?

If the parties are working to fix problems, but the statute of limitations is fast approaching– run, don’t walk, to your attorney to discuss a tolling agreement to stop the running of the statute, or otherwise enter into legally enforceable agreements concerning the statute of limitations.  Just because the parties are all working together to solve a construction issue now doesn’t mean that the finger-pointing won’t begin once the bill is presented.

Have a question about the statute of limitations?

Comment below, drop me an email, or find me on twitter @melissabrumback .

_______________________

Photo (Public Domain):  “brightly coloured sticky notes and tags” by Adrian van Leen via OpenPhoto.


Green Design | Legal risks to designing a Construction project for LEED certification (take 2)

As I noted in an earlier post about risks related to designing buildings for LEED certification, those involved in construction should proceed cautiously in designing to certain LEED standards.

A recent Insurance Journal article discusses insurance and liability risks for a designer or contractor if he guarantees a certain level of “green” performance in his construction contract.

“If you’re an architect, engineer, or contractor, and you’re guaranteeing to your client that the building will be Gold certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, you’re opening up a pretty big can of worms.”

You should never “guarantee” any performance to keep your risks minimized, your insurance in place, and your attorney happy. This article is another reminder to be especially cautious in green construction, and to not make promises that you may not be able to keep.

NC Construction Law Seminar in Greensboro

Excuse the little self-promotion here, but if you want a quick way to learn more about construction issues in North Carolina, I’m speaking at a seminar on May 7, 2010 in Greensboro, NC.

The seminar topics include:
* Understanding Liens, Bonds, and Payment Issues
* Risk Transfer (including insurance and indemnity issues)
* Making Changes & Resolving Disputes during the Construction Process
* Contracts and Subcontracts on Public Projects
* Recent Bankruptcy Cases Impacting Contractors’ Lien Rights

The seminar qualifies for 6.0 PDHs for NC Engineers, 0.6 CSI CEUs, and NC Attorney CLE credit is pending.

Joining me in speaking are Eric Biesecker, Jennifer Maldonado, and Brian Edlin. For more details or to register, go to Half Moon Seminars.