An HVAC subcontractor sued the prime general contractor for $2 million for delays, acceleration, and related impacts that it asserted were caused by the actions of the contractor.
Design professionals are often asked by their clients to sign contracts that include comprehensive—sometimes unreasonable—insurance requirements and indemnification terms. These are usually drafted with the goal of protecting owners, clients, contractors, or other project participants. But how does this work when the required coverages aren’t found in the commercial insurance marketplace?
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.
Engineering firms often take jobs that knowingly expose the firm to legal risk. But how much risk is too much? That’s a question that more and more engineering and design firms are asking when confronted with contracts that contain controversial “Duty to Defend” language.
In the last 20 years, regional and smaller design firms based in the U.S. have found a new demand for their services in the international marketplace. Foreign clients now seek the services of boutique firms and specialty consultants, and what was once the sole domain of large design firms is far more common. This article will discuss the international liability exposures (except for professional liability) faced by architects and engineers who provide services abroad.
The point of this article is to provide design professionals with a simple, three-step evaluation and corresponding “scoring” model to evaluate and improve the indemnity obligations it receives.