Searched the forum for this topic so if there’s an existing thread on this pls point me toward it....,
experienced but recently licensed architect working as a contractor for another architect. Doing mostly non-CD (read: unsealed) work. Not sure of my exposure here. Liability insurance companies didn’t seem familiar since they’re not *my* projects.
Are there AIA contracts for these relationships? Am I even exposed? Architect did not ask for proof of insurance from me.
Are you the responsible party? Is your license being used to stamp and seal? Do you have control over the instruments of service?
If you're an independent contractor and your license is not being used to seal, then you have a responsibility via your license for your standard of care, but whether you could be individually sued if the project goes sideways? Ask a lawyer.
No, as I mentioned I am not the responsible party *for sealed work*. I got a bait-and-switch from the architect I'm working with and I am anticipating work may stop at SD, which I have read can still end up in liability. But who has it?
Mar 25, 21 8:40 pm ·
·
fordified
Thanks for the "Hire a Lawyer" dismissal but my question pertained to whether any *architects* (this is a forum for that) write contracts for the subcontractor work?
Mar 25, 21 8:40 pm ·
·
fordified
Additionally, actually appreciate the response. Not too worried the project will go sideways. Just asking a question about contracts for sub design work
Mar 25, 21 8:43 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Your specific situation requires a lawyer to determine liability because what is given can and may likely wind up in lawsuits at some point. If you are the stamping the drawings then you are liable for what you stamped. That is pretty much the statutory norm in all states of the U.S. If it is your stamp on the drawings (even if it is work that doesn't yet require a stamp on it), you bear primary responsibility for E&O and other associated liabilities that are associated with the drawings you prepared. This does not mean you are liable for the whole project especially if the project changes so much that your work is no longer involved in what is submitted for permits and subsequently built.
Note (this is my personal opinion not intended as definitive advice): If this is still in the conceptual design (schematic design) phase, your liability will be minimal compared to if this got well into the construction phase. What this appears to me, ( I am NOT a lawyer ) it appears to be a contractual matter and matters relating to potential contractual liability issues.
A lawyer who is experienced in contract laws, liability, etc. especially in your jurisdiction, is whom you need to talk to about your specific matters. Remember, our advice may mislead you and you could end up in unnecessary trouble. Therefore, you should discuss your contractual and liability questions with a lawyer who is experienced in contract laws and professional liability matters relating to architects in your state.
Mar 25, 21 10:54 pm ·
·
rcz1001
TLDR? Shorter version:
There are several pieces of information given (and not given) that are specific to your contractual relationship arrangements. There are issues that may pertain to legal matters which may or may not affect you. We are not lawyers and only a lawyer may give definitive legal advice on matters that are not as clear as codified laws and rules. We don't know what your contract says as written, amended, and signed. There maybe stuff we don't know about your situation that the only responsible advice is....therefore...
CONSULT A LAWYER EXPERIENCED IN CONTRACT LAWS, CASES, AND LIABILITY MATTERS IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
When you work under the supervision of another person even on a contract basis you are essentially an employee. You can see the distinction in an AIA consultant contract, which will say the architect is not responsible for the act and omissions of the consultant.
He is not necessarily working "under the supervision" of another person in the sense of the contract. If that was the case, all architects work "under the supervision" of the client. It depends on the meaning of supervision and there is not one singular meaning of supervision. There is a meaning of supervision which can be basically general oversight that the project is being done which is what clients do (or are expected to), then there are different levels of supervision like the one that is between an architect may have over the work of the consultants and then the type of supervision over the work of employed staff like those unlicensed interns.
A school district hires an architectural firm to design a new high school campus but the firm contracts a specialist architect to design the gym and auditorium. The firm's client is the school district but the specialist architect's client is the architectural firm not the school district even though the school district is the overall project client. The specialist architect is a consultant to the architectural firm. The specialist architect is responsible for his or her work but not the overall project like the overall design of the school campus and other buildings.
The firm is explicitly responsible for the work directly prepared by the firm. In case of the work of the specialist architect, the specialist is responsible for his/her work but so is the architectural firm. The firm would bear general contractual liability and a secondary level of responsibility to the work prepared by the specialist architect who bears primary responsibility for the specific work he or she was contracted for... in that case... the gym and auditorium complex.
The firm's professional liability will be limited because they are relying on the professional knowledge and skills of their consultant. The specialist architect will have little to no liability over the rest of the school campus project. They would need to exercise responsible coordination and the firm would be expected to coordinate with their design consultant.
Other examples could involve an architectural firm and independent non-licensed design practices such as a 750-acre tract development that involves exempt and non-exempt buildings. You might assume that an unlicensed designer will always be under the supervision of the architectural firm. That may or may not be the case. The unlicensed designer may be contracted either with the architectural firm or could be contracted with the developer just as the architect is. In either cases, the unlicensed designer may still be an independent contractor and bear liability to the work they are contracted to perform... not just contractual liability but professional / E&O liability matters.
It depends on what contract you signed with the prime Architect. The prime has the contract with the client. You are the consultant even though you are doing architecture work. But so is interior designers. The prime is the one responsible for all the errors. If you signed the typical AIA consultant contract, the responsibility transfers to you for your portion of work. The architect can sue you for the loss caused by your work to pay for the loss he had to pay client. So look at the contract signed for the work. standard ARE exam stuff.
As far as stamp. That is not with the client. It is liability with general public welfare.
Read what was mentioned earlier. It isn't always the case. Just because you are a consultant contracted doesn't mean you don't have liability. The prime Architect may have overall liability but so does the independent contractors (architects, engineers, and anyone else not an actual employee) working as consultants have liability for their work. Remember, courts (and licensing boards when they are determining if their licensee was incompetent, etc.) ultimately determines the liability not the contracts. Prosecutors / Plaintiff's lawyers will file to enjoin all parties and use case precedence to justify their argument. They done that to architects, enginners, construction contractors (prime and subs), etc. There are a litany of cases over the past 50 years.
Mar 28, 21 1:28 am ·
·
rcz1001
It doesn't matter to the lawyers filing the lawsuits on behalf of their clients. They are going to take a shotgun approach and go after not only the "Prime Architect" but also the consultants and the reason for getting both is to increase the chances of one or both of you and increasing the likely chance that the client is going to get their financial restitution in case one of you are deadbeats and the cumulative assets they can go after.
Fordified, If there is any internet forum to ask some legal-related questions, maybe Avvo would be a place to start especially if you don't have a personal attorney or one that may be specially qualified. If you do have a personal attorney, he or she might have referrals to someone who is especially qualified but I agree with Josh's essential point.
We can not provide legal advice beyond explaining licensure laws of the profession (which we should know about well) and building/zoning code-related stuff and explain one's own personal professional experiences but we can't give advice as to what you SHOULD do beyond what was given by me and SneakyPete and Josh said above. A qualified lawyer/attorney can walk you through this and give you legal advice.
Even on Avvo, lawyers on that platform won't want to get into providing legal advice on your case precisely and will note to you that you should consult an attorney privately, to discuss your case in full detail and look at all the facts, and request information to be provided for review so they can see if there is an issue or not.
I am not a lawyer. Most of us here, are not. We are in various stages of our careers in the field of 'architecture'. Some of us, licensed. Some of us are not.
EVERYONE - I did not ask legal advice on a project! Sheesh.... I am aware of things called lawyers to ask legal questions.
Any architect, myself included, would be unwise to provide specific legal advice over the internet - just share general knowledge. Who disagrees?
For clarity's sake (and for posterity, no need to respond), my INTENT was to ask whether any architect independent subcontractors could share their experience writing contracts between the subcontractor and the prime, WHEN you're the subcontractor.
Mar 30, 21 3:26 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
"Are there AIA contracts for these relationships? Am I even exposed? Architect did not ask for proof of insurance from me.
Am I being too hyper-cautious? "
Contracts for licensed ind contractors to other architects/firms
experienced but recently licensed architect working as a contractor for another architect. Doing mostly non-CD (read: unsealed) work. Not sure of my exposure here. Liability insurance companies didn’t seem familiar since they’re not *my* projects.
Are there AIA contracts for these relationships? Am I even exposed? Architect did not ask for proof of insurance from me.
Am I being too hyper-cautious?
Are you the responsible party? Is your license being used to stamp and seal? Do you have control over the instruments of service?
If you're an independent contractor and your license is not being used to seal, then you have a responsibility via your license for your standard of care, but whether you could be individually sued if the project goes sideways? Ask a lawyer.
No, as I mentioned I am not the responsible party *for sealed work*. I got a bait-and-switch from the architect I'm working with and I am anticipating work may stop at SD, which I have read can still end up in liability. But who has it?
Thanks for the "Hire a Lawyer" dismissal but my question pertained to whether any *architects* (this is a forum for that) write contracts for the subcontractor work?
Additionally, actually appreciate the response. Not too worried the project will go sideways. Just asking a question about contracts for sub design work
Your specific situation requires a lawyer to determine liability because what is given can and may likely wind up in lawsuits at some point. If you are the stamping the drawings then you are liable for what you stamped. That is pretty much the statutory norm in all states of the U.S. If it is your stamp on the drawings (even if it is work that doesn't yet require a stamp on it), you bear primary responsibility for E&O and other associated liabilities that are associated with the drawings you prepared. This does not mean you are liable for the whole project especially if the project changes so much that your work is no longer involved in what is submitted for permits and subsequently built.
Note (this is my personal opinion not intended as definitive advice): If this is still in the conceptual design (schematic design) phase, your liability will be minimal compared to if this got well into the construction phase. What this appears to me, ( I am NOT a lawyer ) it appears to be a contractual matter and matters relating to potential contractual liability issues.
A lawyer who is experienced in contract laws, liability, etc. especially in your jurisdiction, is whom you need to talk to about your specific matters. Remember, our advice may mislead you and you could end up in unnecessary trouble. Therefore, you should discuss your contractual and liability questions with a lawyer who is experienced in contract laws and professional liability matters relating to architects in your state.
TLDR? Shorter version:
There are several pieces of information given (and not given) that are specific to your contractual relationship arrangements. There are issues that may pertain to legal matters which may or may not affect you. We are not lawyers and only a lawyer may give definitive legal advice on matters that are not as clear as codified laws and rules. We don't know what your contract says as written, amended, and signed. There maybe stuff we don't know about your situation that the only responsible advice is....therefore...
CONSULT A LAWYER EXPERIENCED IN CONTRACT LAWS, CASES, AND LIABILITY MATTERS IN YOUR JURISDICTION.
When you work under the supervision of another person even on a contract basis you are essentially an employee. You can see the distinction in an AIA consultant contract, which will say the architect is not responsible for the act and omissions of the consultant.
Not always the case, SH225.
He is not necessarily working "under the supervision" of another person in the sense of the contract. If that was the case, all architects work "under the supervision" of the client. It depends on the meaning of supervision and there is not one singular meaning of supervision. There is a meaning of supervision which can be basically general oversight that the project is being done which is what clients do (or are expected to), then there are different levels of supervision like the one that is between an architect may have over the work of the consultants and then the type of supervision over the work of employed staff like those unlicensed interns.
For an example for illustrative purposes only:
A school district hires an architectural firm to design a new high school campus but the firm contracts a specialist architect to design the gym and auditorium. The firm's client is the school district but the specialist architect's client is the architectural firm not the school district even though the school district is the overall project client. The specialist architect is a consultant to the architectural firm. The specialist architect is responsible for his or her work but not the overall project like the overall design of the school campus and other buildings.
The firm is explicitly responsible for the work directly prepared by the firm. In case of the work of the specialist architect, the specialist is responsible for his/her work but so is the architectural firm. The firm would bear general contractual liability and a secondary level of responsibility to the work prepared by the specialist architect who bears primary responsibility for the specific work he or she was contracted for... in that case... the gym and auditorium complex.
The firm's professional liability will be limited because they are relying on the professional knowledge and skills of their consultant. The specialist architect will have little to no liability over the rest of the school campus project. They would need to exercise responsible coordination and the firm would be expected to coordinate with their design consultant.
Entirely agreed with the example. The consultant contract will say that.
Other examples could involve an architectural firm and independent non-licensed design practices such as a 750-acre tract development that involves exempt and non-exempt buildings. You might assume that an unlicensed designer will always be under the supervision of the architectural firm. That may or may not be the case. The unlicensed designer may be contracted either with the architectural firm or could be contracted with the developer just as the architect is. In either cases, the unlicensed designer may still be an independent contractor and bear liability to the work they are contracted to perform... not just contractual liability but professional / E&O liability matters.
It depends on what contract you signed with the prime Architect. The prime has the contract with the client. You are the consultant even though you are doing architecture work. But so is interior designers. The prime is the one responsible for all the errors. If you signed the typical AIA consultant contract, the responsibility transfers to you for your portion of work. The architect can sue you for the loss caused by your work to pay for the loss he had to pay client. So look at the contract signed for the work. standard ARE exam stuff.
As far as stamp. That is not with the client. It is liability with general public welfare.
Read what was mentioned earlier. It isn't always the case. Just because you are a consultant contracted doesn't mean you don't have liability. The prime Architect may have overall liability but so does the independent contractors (architects, engineers, and anyone else not an actual employee) working as consultants have liability for their work. Remember, courts (and licensing boards when they are determining if their licensee was incompetent, etc.) ultimately determines the liability not the contracts. Prosecutors / Plaintiff's lawyers will file to enjoin all parties and use case precedence to justify their argument. They done that to architects, enginners, construction contractors (prime and subs), etc. There are a litany of cases over the past 50 years.
It doesn't matter to the lawyers filing the lawsuits on behalf of their clients. They are going to take a shotgun approach and go after not only the "Prime Architect" but also the consultants and the reason for getting both is to increase the chances of one or both of you and increasing the likely chance that the client is going to get their financial restitution in case one of you are deadbeats and the cumulative assets they can go after.
Yeah dude, you should probably consult your own, personal, lawyer on this one and not an Internet forum. Even Rick is right sometimes.
Fordified, If there is any internet forum to ask some legal-related questions, maybe Avvo would be a place to start especially if you don't have a personal attorney or one that may be specially qualified. If you do have a personal attorney, he or she might have referrals to someone who is especially qualified but I agree with Josh's essential point.
We can not provide legal advice beyond explaining licensure laws of the profession (which we should know about well) and building/zoning code-related stuff and explain one's own personal professional experiences but we can't give advice as to what you SHOULD do beyond what was given by me and SneakyPete and Josh said above. A qualified lawyer/attorney can walk you through this and give you legal advice.
Even on Avvo, lawyers on that platform won't want to get into providing legal advice on your case precisely and will note to you that you should consult an attorney privately, to discuss your case in full detail and look at all the facts, and request information to be provided for review so they can see if there is an issue or not.
I am not a lawyer. Most of us here, are not. We are in various stages of our careers in the field of 'architecture'. Some of us, licensed. Some of us are not.
EVERYONE - I did not ask legal advice on a project! Sheesh.... I am aware of things called lawyers to ask legal questions.
Any architect, myself included, would be unwise to provide specific legal advice over the internet - just share general knowledge. Who disagrees?
For clarity's sake (and for posterity, no need to respond), my INTENT was to ask whether any architect independent subcontractors could share their experience writing contracts between the subcontractor and the prime, WHEN you're the subcontractor.
"Are there AIA contracts for these relationships? Am I even exposed? Architect did not ask for proof of insurance from me. Am I being too hyper-cautious? "
I thought about responding to this latest rant by the OP, but if he can’t see that it’s a legal question it’s on him at this point.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.