varies by state. I wouldn't toss any plans/drawings, but other documents you can start to toss like shops and transmittals, redline sets etc. we are currently undergoing our own house cleaning and it was debated whether to ditch everything past 5 or 10 years, even though we are liable for work 15 years old. They settled on 10 years. I still don't really know what it means to be liable and what could happen, or what possibility it is that you could find yourself in a pinch. Anyone?

well think about what you want to keep

I worked one summer (intern) microfiche, and archiving drawings. We placed alot of things electronically scaned on cds - made it alot better the only things they kept physical copies of were as built plans with electrical/plumbing. Duplications were made of the cds and backups on a independent server - alot of work but made about 500sf of free space in the office.

Time doesn't tell, you can still be sued way after whatever threshold. Particularly if no further changes have been made to structures.

this is for ny state - actually i think they started tossing things pre 1994 or 1993...

is there somewhere i can look this up?

>>Time doesn't tell, you can still be sued way after whatever threshold. Particularly if no further changes have been made to structures.

a lot of the work the office produces doesnt touch/modify existing structural components of the buildings. sounds like this makes a difference?

I have heard that from my accountant up here in Canada as well, (Statue of limitations), I know that the local Architectural associations is trying to limit Architects liability to the same time frame as well, works for taxes etc. so there is some precedent for the seven year period.

Say your firm did a job for a client 15yrs ago. Today she calls you up asking if you can design an addition onto the shack that you
designed & was built 15 yrs ago. You just threw all of your drawings away last week because you needed the space. It would be nice to have those dwgs in some form or fashion to layout your new project. If you're gonna ditch it, consider scanning it first. Might save you some time & money down the road.

Well hopefully you'd been successful enough to not need to accept a house renovation 15 yrs later to start. Most regions around these parts micro fiche of it on record anyway. I still keep the stuff but reduce the paper content to the basic info if possible. Anything at all that maybe contentious we hold on to all the paper trail info and try and keep a solid digital file of most things which helps a ton to reduce files.

yea we only did it with stuff that weren't produced eletronically

oops

Sorry to revive such an old thread, but I want to get some new input on this matter since I'm facing the same problems. Basically, all the partners in the office don't want to throw out any of the old drawings - past the statute of limitations - even though we do not have any room to store any new drawings. I have a little tepee of drawings by my desk that I can not file. I thought that it might be better to scan all the old drawings and archive them digitally for more space. Does this work well? Anyone run into any problems?

every office i ever worked in had an off-site storage unit for just this purpose.

"Well hopefully you'd been successful enough to not need to accept a house renovation 15 yrs later to start."

word, whistler

I just take digital photos, especially of redlines, and chuck them as soon as I can - or give them back to the person with the red pen (even better) - my office has become a roll free zone - thank god!

Back to the original (old) subject - to my understanding, there are 2 things to look at -

Statute of Repose / Statute of Limitations

- Repose is when they can't sue you even if they discover they got totally screwed

- Limitations is when they have a limited time to screw you back after they discover they got totally screwed

There are usually different time periods for different types of getting totally screwed (s.a. they broke the contract, building fell down, building fell down on my head, etc.)

Wow.

It would probably take you 15 years just to scan all of the drawings.

In cases involving architects the statutes of limitations are often found to be irrelevant for a variety of reasons. Most states don't actually regulate the length of time that a firm or architect must retain project files, but insurers of architecture firms typically urge that the firm hold onto all construction documents, shop drawings and correspondence in some format for the life of the firm.
Here is a case in which a 25-year old project made it to trial:


"Statute of limitations does not bar suit filed against architect twenty-five years after project built

Statutes of limitations generally bar suits within two to six years following discovery of damages that are caused by negligence of a design professional. The actual length of time varies from state to state. In stark contrast to a statute of limitations, which begins to run from the date that damages were known or should have been known, is the statute of repose that many states have adopted to bar suits against design professionals beyond a certain number of years following completion of construction of the facility for which the design professional provided professional services.

In the case of Business Men’ s Assurance Company of America (BMA) v. Bruce Graham, representative of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (WD Mo. 1998) (1998 Mo. App. Lexis 1574), the court declined to apply a five-year statute of limitations to bar an action by a building owner against Skidmore design firm. In 1963, Skidmore had designed a large commercial building, clad with marble panels. A general contractor had installed the marble panels in question. Skidmore’s contract called for it to assist the owner in "supervision of the construction."

In April of 1985, a marble panel from a column fell off from the penthouse to the roof of the adjoining tower. A month later, two horizontal panels fell from the seventh floor to the ground.

The owner filed suit against Skidmore approximately one year later, alleging negligence and breach of contract. Skidmore filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The trial court ruled that the claim was not barred by the statute and the plaintiff was awarded judgment of $5,287,991. Skidmore appealed that decision and the appellate court reversed and remanded it because it concluded that there were factual questions concerning when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the damages and that the trial court erred by not having that factual question determined by the jury.

At the new trial, the parties waived jury trial and tried the case before a judge instead. The evidence presented by Mr. Hicklin, a maintenance carpenter, showed that small pieces of marble had begun falling from the building each winter shortly after it was completed. But these marble pieces were from columns and not from the horizontal marble pieces like those giving rise to the instant litigation. Mr. Hicklin said he did not see any cracks or warping in any of the horizontal panels and the problems were limited to the columns. He also stated that he thought the problem was caused by water getting behind the marble, freezing, and causing it to chip off.

Other testimony was given by Mr. Hubbard, a mechanical engineer, who worked at the building for almost seventeen years. He said that he advised Skidmore of the problems with the chipped panels during the 1960s and 1970s and that Skidmore had advised on certain actions to potentially remedy the situation. He said he saw no displacement of the panels and no cracks. One other witness, the building manager, testified that he was aware of only one problem with the panels and that involved the column panels chipping where the aluminum cap touched the column.

He said that he contacted Skidmore about it in the mid-1960s and that Skidmore recommended a remedy for the problem by cutting expansion joints in the aluminum caps. Other than this, the building manager stated that he did not observe any problems with the panels.

When the panels fell from the tower in 1985, a Skidmore partner visited the building to determine the cause. He determined from a survey taken by another consultant that about three to three and one-half percent of the total panels were defective but the cause of the damage could not be determined. He identified 18 panels with potential failure problems. According to the independent consultant’s report, the problems with the marble were caused by lack of quality control of the strength of the marble panels when they were quarried and installed. He also stated that the 1 1/4" thickness was inadequate and was causing the panels to warp which in turn caused the side attachments to fracture the marble and fail. He also concluded that the method by which the panels were attached was suspect and that the panel which had fallen to the roof fell because its attachment wire failed.

The trial court made several significant findings that permitted it to enter judgment against Skidmore with the plaintiff’s claim being barred by the statute of limitations. The most significant of these seemed to be the court’s opinion that the chipping of the panels that was known by the owner did not give notice as to the seriousness of the problem. In particular, "they were not so serious and substantial as to call into question the structural integrity and safety of the cladding system." The court also said there had been no persuasive evidence the chips that required repair were in any way related to the subsequently discovered structural problems with the panels.

Finally, the court found there was no persuasive evidence of damage consisting of panel displacement that would be sufficient to put plaintiff on notice of or in doubt of the structural integrity and safety of the marble cladding system.

Skidmore’s appeal of the trial court’ s determination was based on its argument that the damages were "capable of ascertainment" within the meaning of the statute of limitations. It claims the owner was aware of problems with the marble long before filing suit and that the evidence of the problems "was such to place a reasonably prudent person on notice of a potentially actionable injury."

In rejecting Skidmore’s argument, the appellate court stated that the problems encountered during the 1960s and 1970s were not problems associated with the negligent design and installation of the marble cladding system. Further, said the court, "there was evidence to support the trial court finding that the pre-1981 repairs were not of the kind and degree that would put BMA on notice that the system as a whole was defective." Moreover, the court stated, "If Skidmore was unable to ascertain the cause of the damage at an earlier stage, then it is not reasonable to believe that BMA was put on notice as to the fact of negligent design and installation." For these reasons, the court sustained the judgment."