Tag Archives: terminology

Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)

Posted on by

In my previous post, I made reference to getting a  “Reservation of Rights” letter.   I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim.  Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay?  No.

Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy.  The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued.

With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop.  The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that  you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk.

How should you react to getting a ROR letter?  You should review it with your own lawyer, and consider retaining your lawyer to work with the lawyer the insurance carrier retains to protect your rights.

Is this required?  No.  Your insurance-retained lawyer still owes you the duty to protect your interests.  If the insurance company decides to later withdraw from defense, or seek a court ruling that they do not owe you a defense, your insurance-provided lawyer cannot represent the insurance company against you.  The insurance company would need to hire a different lawyer/law firm to make that argument.

It is never pleasant to get a ROR letter, but it is not unusual, depending on the particular facts in your case.  And it doesn’t mean that you won’t have a vigorous defense, or that the insurance-retained lawyer is not working for you.  They are, and they will.  However, it is never bad advise to have your own personal lawyer weigh in on the ROR letter and its ramifications for your Firm.

Have you ever gotten a ROR letter from your insurance carrier?  If so, share in the comment section, below.  And, be sure to get your White Paper on 7 Critical Mistakes that Architects & Engineers make, by filling out the form on the right hand side of the blog page. 

“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)

Posted on by

reservedRecently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care.

This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you.

Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages.

The reader commented that he could see two related insurance limitations: (1) where the professional agreed to be liable, and (2) where the professional refused to consent to settle a claim. In such cases, many policies contain a “hammer clause” which limits the insurer’s liability and defense costs to that which would have resulted had the insured accepted the settlement.

While these are interesting fact situations to the insurance and/or law geeks among us, for those of you who would rather spend your days designing and engineering instead of in court,  the best practice still remains the same:  avoid agreeing to the highest professional standards. Being the “test case” for a novel legal issue is not in your best interest.

Thoughts? Comments? Experiences in such situations? Share in the comment section or drop me an email.

Can You Change the Scope of Work? Not in a bidding situation! (reader comment)

Posted on by

biddingSetting the Right Expectations for Owner Clients is a must, as I recently wrote in my post discussing Scope of Work clauses.

According to construction consultant Tony Frisby,* scope of work issues are more important than general conditions in the management of a project.

Tony notes, however, that it is not always possible to change Scope of Work clauses in every situation:

“For example, if bidding on advertised procurement, any modifications in the bid may very well be a basis of rejection as non-responsive; the subcontractor is bound the same rule as to the scope of work in the general contract.  In negotiated contracts, two step and design build, of course, the contractor can delineate modifications or exclusions.

In subcontract agreements, we recommend that a Scope Letter do exactly what you have indicated, with emphasis on duties by others, such as hoisting and services provided by others.  Obviously, we recommend the deletion of ridiculous clauses such as No Damages for Delay.”

Tony’s point is a valid one– those dealing with a Bidding situation cannot change the Scope of Work.  Most architects & engineers enjoy more flexibility here than contractors, and can work on scope of work as part of an Request for Proposal response.  Tony’s point about subcontractor agreements is equally applicable to agreements with subconsultants as well.

* Tony Frisby specializes in prevention and non-judicial resolution of construction disputes.  He also assists companies in organizational improvements.

Agree? Disagree?  Share your thoughts with Tony and me, below.

Photo credit: Financial Times via Creative Commons license.

Orders of Precedence in Construction Contracts, and the conflict between architects and contractors

Posted on by

duking it outA few years back, we discussed the Orders of Precedence clause in Construction Contracts.  I wrote a post talking about how having such a clause in a contract can help the parties navigate in the grey areas where specifications and drawings may disagree.

My post generated a follow up guest post from Phil Kabza, a MasterSpec specialist, on what he saw as the problems with an order of precedence clause in truly protecting all parties to the contract.

This week, Phil’s guest post generated a new, and thought-provoking (flame-provoking?) comment from “Joe GC”.  Joe writes:

It is another very typical situation of the Architect and Engineer doing a poor job and then trying to seek relief of their error at the contractors expense. Phil’s comments are based on the fact that all contractors are not ethical, which is simply not true. If the subcontractor is the expert, then why are the drawings and specifications prepared by Architect’s and Engineer?

This is exactly why Design Build delivery methods are becoming more popular by the day.   Single source responsibility from someone who really is an expert, not someone who has a lot of education and therefore purports to be an expert.

In otherwords in laymen’s terms “If I have to verify everything you draw and specify Mr. Architect, then why do I need you in the process at all”? If you are not responsible for the review of the submittals then why do I need to send them to you? No more “approved” stamps just “reviewed” stamps; it’s becoming a joke!

When will the Design Community wake up? That is why so many Architects and Engineers are now finding themselves working for contractors.  You are responsible for the Design Mr. Architect, it is cut and dry, simple as that, not rocket science and you do not need to be AIA or P.E. to understand it.

AIA needs to do more training, especially when it comes to spending time in the field. They need to understand what they are designing, just as the contractor needs to understand what he is building.  They have never seen it that way because they think they are above the contractor or smarter than the contractor.

Until they learn they are not better or smarter because of classroom education things will not be improving and the lawyers will continue to be the most successful.

 

Interesting perspective as to why Design Build is becoming more popular.  I think Joe is correct that Design Build is more popular now, but I think it has less to do with concerns about design professionals avoiding liability and more to do with the economic value in having the “buck stopping” at one single entity.

Is there a perception that designers are classroom educated but not field trained?  Is it a fair one?  Share YOUR thoughts with Joe and me, below.

 

For Engineers & Architects: Top 10 Construction Law in NC Blog Posts

Posted on by

top10Since I have so many newer readers here at Construction Law NC, I thought a brief summary of some of the most popular posts might be helpful.  (I have also added this list to the About Me & Contact Info page, in case you want to refer to it later).

Presented below are the top 10 posts by popularity (although the list does fluctuate some):

  1. “Substantial Completion” on the Construction Project: How is it defined?  (always a popular post; owners want every last paint scratch fixed before they are willing to consider the project complete)
  2. The Sticky Statute of Limitations in NC  (the general rule: 3 years from date of service; however, there are many exceptions)
  3. Statute of Repose: Putting your Risk to Bed  (after 6 years, in North Carolina, even the exceptions to statutes of limitations don’t help)
  4. Planning Ahead for Additional Compensation  (money; cause, we all need to get paid!)
  5. Spring Cleaning: 6 Contract law tips for limiting risk on construction projects  (contracts are the first step in limiting your risk- read here to learn how to make them effective)
  6. How to Smartly Handle Project Documents  (your policies and procedures with documents can make or break a lawsuit)
  7. The Architect’s and Engineer’s “Standard of Care”  (note: perfection is NOT the standard!)
  8. Design Error and the Spearin Doctrine (why your designs must actually, you know, work!)
  9. Active vs. Passive Negligence (sharing the blame, unequally, when something goes wrong)
  10. Adding an “Additional Insured” in the Professional Services Agreement: an exercise in futility!  (for those times when you have an obtuse owner- show them this!)

Are there other posts that you think should be added to this “Best of” collection?  Wish I had written a post on your pet topic?  Share below.

Photo (c) Independent Association of Businesses.