The facts

Picture this: a contractor named Adrian, who specializes in roadwork, lands a major project to repair a bridge over a river. The challenge? The narrowness of the river and roadway restrictions make it tricky to keep traffic flowing during construction. Plus, there are strict environmental rules to follow because it’s a salmon river.

To work around these issues, Adrian decides to rent some barges to hold the excavators and debris while working underneath the bridge. He brings in Morgan—an engineer specializing in naval architecture—to assess the stability and buoyancy of the barges needed for the job.

Once Morgan completes the study, the barges are set up and ready to go. But as soon as the excavator is secured on one of the barges, disaster strikes! Water begins flooding the barge, causing it to drift back to shore. It turns out that the barge was unstable and couldn’t be used for the project. 

The result

Adrian claims that Morgan didn’t do their job properly. He argues the stability and buoyancy analysis was incomplete, and Morgan didn’t consider all the factors affecting the operation of the barge or recommend a fluid dynamics simulation.

Now, Adrian is seeking compensation from Morgan for the unexpected costs and delays—mainly because he couldn’t use one of the barges and had to change his work plan.

To get to the bottom of it, an expert is brought in to see if Morgan followed good engineering practices. The expert finds that there’s no specific guideline that says a fluid dynamics analysis is mandatory, and that it was Morgan’s call whether such a simulation should be recommended. Even though Adrian would more than likely have skipped the simulation, given the time and money involved, since Morgan did not suggest the simulation, Adrian can argue he wasn’t fully informed about all the factors that could impact the barges’ stability and buoyancy.

This scenario highlights the expectations clients have of professional services, and the importance of anticipating shortcomings—whether due to a client’s misunderstanding of the scope or to an engineer’s lack of clarification. It’s the engineer’s duty to advise.

Risk factors

Risk factor #1

Incomplete communication of scope.

• Clearly outlining the scope, objectives and limitations of a study is vital to ensure that clients understand the content of a report. Unclear communication of the project goal can lead clients to assume that all potential issues have been addressed.
• Always define and document what your analysis includes, as well as highlighting areas that have purposefully been left out, so that everyone is on the same page.

Risk factor #2

Lack of clear guidelines or standards.

• Some guidelines or standards may not address particularities of a project, as is the case here. Be sure to communicate recommendations, such as additional testing or analysis, to address the matter in order to help reduce the risk of problems arising.

Risk factor #3

Client expectations and understanding.

• Clients who have hired a professional engineer, architect or design consultant will rely on their expertise to bring their project to realization. Without clear communication, misunderstandings of their roles in the project can occur.
• There are always limitations to what a study can accurately predict. These limitations need to be outlined at the onset of the project to make sure the client’s expectations are realistic and align with the services you were hired to provide.

Risk factor #4

Risk of not anticipating all factors.

• Failing to recommend or see that certain tests are performed might leave some risks unaddressed. In complex or large-scale projects, these unexpected problems could have disastrous consequences.
• Where safety or stability is a concern, consider whether additional safety factors, stability studies or simulations should be recommended to the client.

Risk factor #5

Documentation and record-keeping.

• Not documenting your recommendations and the reasons behind your decisions can make it harder to defend your work if disputes arise.
• Keep detailed records of your assessments, advice and the rationale behind your choices—it’s good practice and provides clarity and protection.

This claim scenario is for illustrative purposes only. Please remember that only the insurance policy can provide actual terms, coverage, amounts, conditions and exclusions.