What type of buildings have more liability for architects? - ENTER Pre Design Forum - ARE 3 Format

Not logged in - Login | Register

Read about Exam Security

ARE Forum > ARE 3 Format > ENTER Pre Design Forum > What type of buildings have more liability for architects?

What type of buildings have more liability for architects?

Moderated by: areforum

New Topic

Author

Post

ARE-STUDIER
Member

Joined:	Mon Oct 8th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	87
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Architect
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:04 am

Quote

I am going through some of the list from the forum, and I don't understand what this question is referring to. Could any one help me with it? Thank you.

Coach
Member

Joined:	Tue Mar 4th, 2008
Location:	USA
Posts:	5812
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Architect
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:33 am

Quote

I think it refers to legal claims after completion. And the winner is condominiums by far.

Many architects and engineers won't touch them and I hear that some E&O carriers won't insure them.

ARE-STUDIER
Member

Joined:	Mon Oct 8th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	87
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Architect
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:44 am

Quote

Thank you very much! Also what is visual easement?

Coach
Member

Joined:	Tue Mar 4th, 2008
Location:	USA
Posts:	5812
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Architect
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 10:58 am

Quote

ARE-STUDIER wrote: Thank you very much! Also what is visual easement?Never heard it worded that way, but there are times where properties are granted clear sightlines for light and views. They're normally called an air or airspace easement.

ARE-STUDIER
Member

Joined:	Mon Oct 8th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	87
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Architect
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 11:25 am

Quote

Thank you!

lmac69
Member

Joined:	Fri Dec 14th, 2007
Location:	Ontario Canada
Posts:	243
Exams Taken:	PD, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Describes Me:	A R C H I
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:12 pm

Quote

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 09:22 pm

Quote

errors and ommissions.

lmac69
Member

Joined:	Fri Dec 14th, 2007
Location:	Ontario Canada
Posts:	243
Exams Taken:	PD, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Describes Me:	A R C H I
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 11:55 pm

Quote

Thank you.

skyhook
Member

Joined:	Sat Mar 15th, 2008
Location:	BT In My Crosshairs
Posts:	1002
Exams Taken:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP
Describes Me:	support where beam or wall not available
Status:	Online
Mana:

Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 04:15 am

Quote

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 06:11 am

Quote

Lots of owners with lots of complaints.

The ability of developers to operate completely under corporate protection and then to dissolve the corporation.

The inability of architects to have corporate protection for their work and a long statute of repose.

Oh, and lawyers who specialize in suing architects on behalf of condo associations.

skyhook
Member

Joined:	Sat Mar 15th, 2008
Location:	BT In My Crosshairs
Posts:	1002
Exams Taken:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP
Describes Me:	support where beam or wall not available
Status:	Online
Mana:

Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:13 pm

Quote

brudgers wrote:
Oh, and lawyers who specialize in suing architects on behalf of condo associations.

thanks...probably the same lawyers who represent the ada lobby

mlawhockey
Member

Joined:	Mon Jun 25th, 2007
Location:	USA, USA
Posts:	208
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 09:43 pm

Quote

Coach wrote: I think it refers to legal claims after completion. And the winner is condominiums by far.

Many architects and engineers won't touch them and I hear that some E&O carriers won't insure them.

i would disagree with that blanket entirely. i would say those building types that the firm has least experience in present the most liability. you don't get a specialized industrial firm to design condos...or schools, or visa-versa, right?

good architectural firms with a background in condos that work alongside competent construction firms rarely have a problem. in those cases, the condo board (association for owners) is nit-picking at actual room sizes (vs. marketing), improper detailing (contractor deviating from drawings), materials used (contractor alternates), or scuffs on finishes: you wouldn't believe how many people complain about corridor nicks resulting from tenant occupancy, and expect the contractor/architect to alleviate the issue.

a lot of those issues have nothing to do with the architect, and are picked up by the contractor/builder or eventually dropped after the technical audit is complete (the document the condo board prepares with all the buildings deficiencies, usually prepared by a building science firm). if you've done your job, and have a good balanced team of employees and consultants, the audit will reflect that. and therefore liability is minimal, unless the architect has shown a professional error in judgement. BEST way to prevent issues: site visits! this negates issues before they become too costly to correct.

I do agree that there are lawyers who now specialize in condo lawsuits, but the statute for claims only lasts one year after the audit, and the audit is required by law from the condo board within 30 days (might be 45) from the occupancy by the ownership group. at least where i practice: might be different in different states.

and coach is correct: visual easements refer to rights of sight line...like to a lake, park, or historic building.

Last edited on Sun Aug 31st, 2008 10:00 pm by mlawhockey

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 04:01 am

Quote

mlawhockey wrote: Coach wrote: I think it refers to legal claims after completion. And the winner is condominiums by far.

Many architects and engineers won't touch them and I hear that some E&O carriers won't insure them.

i would disagree with that blanket entirely. i would say those building types that the firm has least experience in present the most liability. you don't get a specialized industrial firm to design condos...or schools, or visa-versa, right?

good architectural firms with a background in condos that work alongside competent construction firms rarely have a problem. in those cases, the condo board (association for owners) is nit-picking at actual room sizes (vs. marketing), improper detailing (contractor deviating from drawings), materials used (contractor alternates), or scuffs on finishes: you wouldn't believe how many people complain about corridor nicks resulting from tenant occupancy, and expect the contractor/architect to alleviate the issue.

a lot of those issues have nothing to do with the architect, and are picked up by the contractor/builder or eventually dropped after the technical audit is complete (the document the condo board prepares with all the buildings deficiencies, usually prepared by a building science firm). if you've done your job, and have a good balanced team of employees and consultants, the audit will reflect that. and therefore liability is minimal, unless the architect has shown a professional error in judgement. BEST way to prevent issues: site visits! this negates issues before they become too costly to correct.

I do agree that there are lawyers who now specialize in condo lawsuits, but the statute for claims only lasts one year after the audit, and the audit is required by law from the condo board within 30 days (might be 45) from the occupancy by the ownership group. at least where i practice: might be different in different states.

and coach is correct: visual easements refer to rights of sight line...like to a lake, park, or historic building.

One year of liability?

That must have been a $20 rock.

Or something from Canada.

mlawhockey
Member

Joined:	Mon Jun 25th, 2007
Location:	USA, USA
Posts:	208
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 04:40 pm

Quote

One year of liability?

That must have been a $20 rock.

Or something from Canada.

Liability as it pertains to the technical audit for a condo, yes. technical audits are examinations of the components of the construction to ascertain if the building was designed/built to meet the standards expected of a professional (architect, consultants, construction, etc.).

at the end of construction (as the project is being handed over) an independent firm conducts the audit with the sole purpose of uncovering every defect that might come from construction, poor programming, code or design, as well as conformity to the construction documents and specifications. the audit either outlines areas of deficiency, or, illustrates the high degree of construction (and all issues relating to it).   Therefore, if you do your job as a professional (well designed documents, diligent contract admin) you should have no issues.

and don't the Canadians have the highest quality of construction in the world? i know i read that their trades are currently more skilled than Americans, given that welding and fabrication comes heavily from native and french Canadians, and that western and central Canadian trade schools are heavily populated with American students. i think it comes from their overall code standards: attempts at designing to maximums vs. minimums.

one thing i do know is that (from watching project management videos in school and on the history channel) half of new york was built from workers plucked from Canada due to their skill in construction.  so i wouldn't be quick to dismiss their competency brudgers.

brudgers: some firms don't acknowledge long durations (limits) of liability because we're competent to begin with.  we don't site around at 6 years and 11 months biting our nails wondering if our firms are going to be sued. lol.

Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 04:57 pm by mlawhockey

graspin
Member

Joined:	Sat Jul 5th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	488
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 06:52 pm

Quote

When it comes to condominiums, the technical audit constitutes a 1 year liability to the development team, no? it's like a warranty of service. That's the way i understood it.

When it comes to general liability, I believe it is longer. 7 years. However, if an independent building science firm writes a report (tech. audit) that to the best of their knowledge the constructed building satisfies all design, construction, code and specification data, then i would also assume that the information can be used in a lawsuit to favor the architect, provided they also followed the test of accepted professional conduct.

If the structural system fails due to poor design or poor construction, they architect can not be faulted if all the rules or professional conduct were followed by his team. If you buy a car and get into an accident because you lost a contact lense while driving, you can not sue the car manufacturer. they performed their duty and under normal conditions it should have performed properly.

But I'm not sure what types have more liability. It depends on how a question is worded. I guess that's why architects become specialized: They prefer to work on familiar projects types in order to reduce risk.

Last edited on Mon Sep 1st, 2008 07:03 pm by graspin

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:23 am

Quote

mlawhockey wrote: Liability as it pertains to the technical audit for a condo, yes. technical audits are examinations of the components of the construction to ascertain if the building was designed/built to meet the standards expected of a professional (architect, consultants, construction, etc.).

at the end of construction (as the project is being handed over) an independent firm conducts the audit with the sole purpose of uncovering every defect that might come from construction, poor programming, code or design, as well as conformity to the construction documents and specifications. the audit either outlines areas of deficiency, or, illustrates the high degree of construction (and all issues relating to it).   Therefore, if you do your job as a professional (well designed documents, diligent contract admin) you should have no issues.

and don't the Canadians have the highest quality of construction in the world? i know i read that their trades are currently more skilled than Americans, given that welding and fabrication comes heavily from native and french Canadians, and that western and central Canadian trade schools are heavily populated with American students. i think it comes from their overall code standards: attempts at designing to maximums vs. minimums.

one thing i do know is that (from watching project management videos in school and on the history channel) half of new york was built from workers plucked from Canada due to their skill in construction.  so i wouldn't be quick to dismiss their competency brudgers.

brudgers: some firms don't acknowledge long durations (limits) of liability because we're competent to begin with.  we don't site around at 6 years and 11 months biting our nails wondering if our firms are going to be sued. lol.

This has nothing to do with the competence of Canadians.

Just potential differences in their legal systems.

Heck architects have to charge on a fee curve in BC...and it's a curve set by the architects.

If you think an audit will stop a lawsuit in the US, I wish you luck.

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:26 am

Quote

graspin wrote: When it comes to condominiums, the technical audit constitutes a 1 year liability to the development team, no? it's like a warranty of service. That's the way i understood it.

When it comes to general liability, I believe it is longer. 7 years. Varies from state to state. Some states have no effectve statute of repose (at least that's my understanding). However, if an independent building science firm writes a report (tech. audit) that to the best of their knowledge the constructed building satisfies all design, construction, code and specification data, then i would also assume that the information can be used in a lawsuit to favor the architect, provided they also followed the test of accepted professional conduct. Or it just means the auditing firm can be dragged into a suit along with the architect.

If the structural system fails due to poor design or poor construction, they architect can not be faulted if all the rules or professional conduct were followed by his team. Sure they can. Particularly if it's design. But structural systems aren't the source of most claims aginst architects. The vast majority are moisture related. If you buy a car and get into an accident because you lost a contact lense while driving, you can not sue the car manufacturer. Like hell you can't.they performed their duty and under normal conditions it should have performed properly.

But I'm not sure what types have more liability. It depends on how a question is worded. I guess that's why architects become specialized: They prefer to work on familiar projects types in order to reduce risk.

winky dinky ncarb stinky
Member

Joined:	Wed Jul 23rd, 2008
Location:	Ncarb La La Land, California USA
Posts:	21
Exams Taken:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BT
Exams Passed:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BT
Describes Me:	Brains are fried
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:05 am

Quote

a company that I used to work for got sued, we designed a condo 6 years ago!..I designed a window to look out front, the condo association did not maintain it's landscape. This lady claims that when she opens the window the spores from the weeds were breathed in and fungus were growing in her brains. She won over the neighbors and freaked them out, all of the sudden they all had concerns about their health and their childrens...Yeah, freakin ridiculous claim. Anyways, one let's not forget the third party, two, when there's a lawsuit, it's across the board- the person who installed the workout machines in the gym across the building was also pulled in! Eventually, they lost but it took 50 grand to get out of the lawsuit, which was pretty much the deductible so the money comes straight out of the company account. Not to mention resource, time, etc..so if you were unlucky, and you get couple of these ridiculous claims, (my understanding is the insurance don't kick in until it passes the 50 grand deductible per suit.) you're screwed. Moisture related issues, I understand it's a 10 year statute in California..

Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 08:06 am by winky dinky ncarb stinky

graspin
Member

Joined:	Sat Jul 5th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	488
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 11:17 am

Quote

winky dinky ncarb stinky wrote: a company that I used to work for got sued, we designed a condo 6 years ago!..I designed a window to look out front, the condo association did not maintain it's landscape. This lady claims that when she opens the window the spores from the weeds were breathed in and fungus were growing in her brains. She won over the neighbors and freaked them out, all of the sudden they all had concerns about their health and their childrens...Yeah, freakin ridiculous claim. Anyways, one let's not forget the third party, two, when there's a lawsuit, it's across the board- the person who installed the workout machines in the gym across the building was also pulled in! Eventually, they lost but it took 50 grand to get out of the lawsuit, which was pretty much the deductible so the money comes straight out of the company account. Not to mention resource, time, etc..so if you were unlucky, and you get couple of these ridiculous claims, (my understanding is the insurance don't kick in until it passes the 50 grand deductible per suit.) you're screwed. Moisture related issues, I understand it's a 10 year statute in California..

i would assume that even in America, a lawsuit can be thrown out and costs awarded to the defendant? but then again, i'm talking about a country that can award millions for spilling hot coffee on oneself. "ouch, i didn't know the hot coffee was THAT hot!"

one has to look at the expectations of an architect: if no window was provided, health and safety would definitely be an issue: not adding this element would be a breach in architectural duty. on the other hand, the upkeep and maintenance of a property cannot be the responsibility of an architect, solong as they illustrated the requirements at handover (where i am, we require that landscape do this in his accompanying report/drawing package).

your company got caught up in a crappy situation, and bought its way out to reduce involvement in a lengthy trial. probably the best approach, given that litigation is costly. however, that is a product of American society. the system in other parts of the world is not predicated on frivolous litigation.

graspin
Member

Joined:	Sat Jul 5th, 2008
Location:
Posts:	488
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 11:21 am

Quote

brudgers wrote: If you buy a car and get into an accident because you lost a contact lense while driving, you can not sue the car manufacturer. Like hell you can't.

lol. we live in a society where i could sue you right now because i don't like your name, or because reading your comments makes me nauseous. that doesn't mean it'll fly in court.

Currently, America lacks a test of reasonable measures. This is why EVERYTHING inevitably goes to trial. You built the system, so don't cry when it's broke.

Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 11:25 am by graspin

skyhook
Member

Joined:	Sat Mar 15th, 2008
Location:	BT In My Crosshairs
Posts:	1002
Exams Taken:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP
Describes Me:	support where beam or wall not available
Status:	Online
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:08 pm

Quote

Context would argue that We are this America where personal responsibilty is exercised with good measure (despite the actions of the few) and without the cry of protest, this wonderful, inherited system cannot improve.

Last edited on Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 03:22 pm by skyhook

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 04:29 pm

Quote

graspin wrote: brudgers wrote: If you buy a car and get into an accident because you lost a contact lense while driving, you can not sue the car manufacturer. Like hell you can't.

lol. we live in a society where i could sue you right now because i don't like your name, or because reading your comments makes me nauseous. that doesn't mean it'll fly in court.

Currently, America lacks a test of reasonable measures. This is why EVERYTHING inevitably goes to trial. You built the system, so don't cry when it's broke.

"Who's crying?" isn't the question.

It's "Who's burying their head in the sand?"

And maybe "Who doesn't know what they're talking about?"

Most US cases are settled out of court, BTW.

But it still costs money, and since many E&O policies cover legal defense even a suit suit settled out of court affects premiums.

And of course, if legal defense isn't provided by the carrier, legal expenses incurr directly to the architect.

brudgers
Member

Joined:	Thu Jun 1st, 2006
Location:	The Moment
Posts:	7639
Exams Taken:
Exams Passed:
Describes Me:	Newly described.
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 04:38 pm

Quote

graspin wrote: i would assume that even in America, a lawsuit can be thrown out and costs awarded to the defendant? but then again, i'm talking about a country that can award millions for spilling hot coffee on oneself. "ouch, i didn't know the hot coffee was THAT hot!"

I believe that the punative damages were awarded because the defendent had long known that the temperature of the coffee was high enough to cause injury, had discussed the fact internally at length, and decided not to do anything about it for business reasons.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants[/url]

polyarch
Member

Joined:	Tue Feb 20th, 2007
Location:	San Diego, California USA
Posts:	193
Exams Taken:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, CD, SP, BP, BT
Exams Passed:	PD, GS, LF, ME, BD/MM, SP, BP, BT
Describes Me:	Almost there!
Status:	Offline
Mana:

Posted: Tue Sep 2nd, 2008 05:31 pm

Quote

ARE-STUDIER wrote: Thank you very much! Also what is visual easement?

A Scenic Easement it the taking of private propery by a goverment for public uses, this type of easement does not require compensation to the owner. It prevents development on land which has scenic value to the public!

Current time is 07:29 pm

Go to main Forum Board

Any comments? please contact us at
click here

RULES AND DISCLAIMER