The facts
David, a structural engineer, was hired to create plans and specifications for a building extension. His job was to make sure everything was up to code and to certify the final work. He completed his work on the project, and everything seemed to be in order.
But not long after the project wrapped up, the building owner discovered some serious design flaws. One major issue was that the snow stops on the roof were not effective. They were supposed to prevent snow and icicles from piling up, but instead, they turned out to be a complete disaster. Snow stops are primarily the architect's responsibility. David's role—as the structural engineer on the project—was limited to attaching the snow stops to the structure.
The result
During the investigation, it was discovered that David had reviewed the snow stop design with the architect—something outside his scope of work on the project. Modifications were discussed to improve the snow stops’ efficiency; unfortunately, the problems persisted.
In this scenario, it could be argued that the engineer was responsible for the advice given to the architect. The architect therefore sought to hold David liable for the design error of the snow stops, even though that was not part of David’s contracted responsibilities.
In conclusion, you can potentially be held liable even if a design is not explicitly within your scope. That’s why it’s advisable to clearly define the extent of your services in your contract or offer of services, and explicitly exclude services that you will not provide in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Risk factors
Risk factor #1
Scope creep.
- When architects, engineers and design consultants take on tasks outside their defined roles, it can lead to misunderstandings and liability exposure not intended to be assumed. In this case, David, the structural engineer of the project, overstepped his role and provided advice to the architect regarding the design of the snow stops, effectively increasing the scope of his responsibilities.
- Always ensure that the scope of work is clearly defined in contracts and that you stick to the tasks outlined in your mandate to avoid taking on unintended liability.
Risk factor #2
Miscommunication.
- Lack of clear communication between the architect and engineer can result in design flaws. If roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined, it can lead to assumptions that may not hold up in practice.
- Foster a culture of clear communication among all parties involved in a project. Regular check-ins can help clarify responsibilities and address any concerns before they escalate.
Risk factor #3
Documentation gaps.
- Failing to clearly document discussions and decisions can create problems later. If there is no record of meetings where modifications to the design are discussed—such as the snow stops in this claim scenario—it can be difficult to defend against liability claims.
- Keep detailed records of all communications, decisions and changes made during a project. This documentation can be invaluable if questions about liability arise later.
Risk factor #4
Regulatory compliance.
- Not adhering to building codes and regulations can lead to serious consequences. For example, in this claim scenario, the snow stops didn’t meet safety standards despite the modifications to the original design. The engineer’s involvement in providing advice to the architect put him at risk for liability.
- Regularly review and stay updated on relevant building codes and regulations. This knowledge can help ensure that all designs meet safety standards and reduce the risk of liability.
This claim scenario is for illustrative purposes only. Please remember that only the insurance policy can provide actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions.