Cyber liability is a growing threat in the world of business and design firms are not immune from being targeted.
Key risk allocation clauses in design professional contracts that routinely require editing to make the risk more manageable or insurable include those presented in this template. The language set forth below is suggested as reasonable compromise language to onerous terms and conditions. This is not legal advice, and before adopting contract language for any specific situation, consultations with legal counsel is recommended. Enforceability of contract language varies from state to state.
The use of broker-verification questionnaires has been a growing trend seen most commonly in the context of construction insurance. In attempting to secure a contract, it is becoming increasingly common for project owners to request that brokers complete questionnaires wherein the broker is asked to verify whether the client’s policies meet the contractual requirements, contains specific exclusions, etc.
Many design firms attend risk management training sessions and implement certain practices based on an industry trend or project claim. Other firms may only concentrate on contracts and insurance coverage’s as a risk management strategy, which only addresses a portion of an effective risk management program. As they say – “you cannot manage something that is not measured.”
You’ve worked hard to establish your business and plan to stay actively involved in its future success. So, why would you plan your exit from it now? Because, as the saying goes, if you fail to plan, plan to fail. You won’t lead your company forever, and statistics show most businesses don’t make it past the second generation of ownership due to the lack of a proper and thorough succession plan.
In the world of claims-related contract clauses for design professional agreements, the indemnity and defense clauses get all the attention. However, lurking in the shadow of the indemnity clause is a menacing cousin with potentially even greater and more frequent impact and risk: the prevailing party attorneys’ fee clause. Both clauses share the common risk that they are often not covered by professional liability insurance because each represents a contractually-assumed liability which would not exist in the absence of the contract.
Carefully selected and advantageously used, your broker can be as important to the management of your practice as your accountant or your attorney. Poorly selected and ill-equipped to advise you on the risks of professional practice, your broker may add little more of value to what you do than the cost of a few postage stamps at renewal time. The choice is yours.
For many firms, the ability to offer and maintain competitive employee benefit programs continues to be one of the keys to attracting and retaining the best available talent. Yet, the regulatory and legal environment within which these benefit plans are being designed and administered is more complex than ever. Not only are there ERISA issues, but there is a literal alphabet soup of COBRA, FMLA, HIPAA, etc. With this greater complexity and heightened scrutiny comes risk: risk for the company itself, and the executives and administrators responsible for overseeing and administering the benefit plans
Which is better, more or less documentation in your project file after the job is complete? Despite recent advances in technology, document retention has become a difficult, expensive and complex proposition. Computers have changed design professionals’ work flows and methods, greatly increasing efficiencies, but also exponentially multiplying the volume of data; e-mails, attachments, drawing revisions, text and voice messages, not to mention folks are still sending faxes and letters, actual paper ones. All of this adds up and can become an unmanageable mess, even for the best of us. So what should you do? To answer these questions see the attached article by William Thomas.
The closely watched California Supreme Court case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore Owings and Merrill et. al. has been decided, and the opinion is bad news for California Architects. The Court held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners in the design of residential buildings where the architect is a principal architect on the project, meaning that the architect is not a subordinate to other design professionals