Prof Indemnity general questions

pseudo-tech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Sorry Pseudo, it does not work that way. Planning Drawings are for Planning only. If a client decides to use the drawings for construction they don't have a leg to stand on. No judge would tell them to chase the person who did Planning drawings. This is why we write for Planning Purposes only on them. There is a big jump from planning to even tendering drawings never mind construction. The reality is there is little or no indemnity required for Planning drawings, only the surveying of same. There should be! I agree.

I can assure you that when the legal spotlight is turned on it is pointed on the professional involved. If a defect occurs on site due to a design defect that can be proven, the person that prepared those drawings will have nowhere to hide.

An example of a project that i am aware of (not involved in) where there was a construction defect. It was proven that the contractor was fully at fault. However, by the time this reached court the contractor had gone out of business. The spotlight was taken off him because he had nothing to loose and pointed at the entire design team including even the Quantity Surveyor. The court ruled against the design team and apportioned the blame equally to all of them. How fair is that?? And can you honestly advise anyone preparing drawings that they do not require PI insurance???

ConfusedTech

Pseudo, that is a very different situation you speak of. I am clearly speaking of Planning and you are talking about a construction defects! Any person who takes a planning set of drawings, and builds off them cannot blame an architect for a design defect! The tender and construction process of a job are built with processes such as Building Reg assessments, detail assessments etc to prevent this from happening. If during this process issues are found on the drawings, the client is more than entitled to make a claim against the architect, but if they build off of the planning drawings direct, they are liable. Planning drawings are purely for demonstration purposes to the Planning Department and Public as to what you want to build. They dont have to be even compliant with building regulations, as that is not in the remit of the planners, or the drawings for that purpose. (They should be, but dont have to be)

It is common that when the first person gets sued in a job, there is a domino effect, and everybody gets sued. Your example is the same as many other cases, but does not prove your point!

Please dont misquote me either. I never advised anybody not to get PI insurance. As a person with PI cover for 12 years, I am clearly pointing out that the level of exposure when doing planning drawings, or providing drawings on a contract basis to another party with PI cover, such as an architect, is tiny, and really only lays in the survey and dimensional layout of the building/site.

pseudo-tech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Pseudo, that is a very different situation you speak of. I am clearly speaking of Planning and you are talking about a construction defects! Any person who takes a planning set of drawings, and builds off them cannot blame an architect for a design defect! The tender and construction process of a job are built with processes such as Building Reg assessments, detail assessments etc to prevent this from happening. If during this process issues are found on the drawings, the client is more than entitled to make a claim against the architect, but if they build off of the planning drawings direct, they are liable. Planning drawings are purely for demonstration purposes to the Planning Department and Public as to what you want to build. They dont have to be even compliant with building regulations, as that is not in the remit of the planners, or the drawings for that purpose. (They should be, but dont have to be)

I will have to disagree with you on that one. A lot of properties are constructed using Planning drawings (i don't agree with it). If there is a design defect in the Planning drawings that lead to a construction defect of non-compliance with the building regulations. An example that i corrected once: If an agent makes an application for a commercial unit and have 2.4 meter high ceiling heights, not allowing for downstand beams or services. When constructed the ceiling height would be less than the required 2.4 meters. Who is at fault for that?? the answer is the agent in question was fired (case pending) and i was employed to make a new application.

ConfusedTech wrote: »

It is common that when the first person gets sued in a job, there is a domino effect, and everybody gets sued. Your example is the same as many other cases, but does not prove your point!

Please dont misquote me either. I never advised anybody not to get PI insurance. As a person with PI cover for 12 years, I am clearly pointing out that the level of exposure when doing planning drawings, or providing drawings on a contract basis to another party with PI cover, such as an architect, is tiny, and really only lays in the survey and dimensional layout of the building/site.

I agree with you that when the solicitors get involved, its a wide net that they throw out. I did not misquote you. The question I asked was a rhetorical question. We can dance around the fact whether or not someone needs PI or not but I was asking the question on whether you would advise someone not to take it out?????

ConfusedTech

I think that in a case what you note above, even the PI cover may challange the 'professional' that is providing this service for being an idiot or not providing a 'Professional Service'.

The topic seems to have swayed though. We were talking about people providing small one off plannings and domestic work. You can hardly expect some of these people to pay for PI insurance, and they are not required to do so. I clearly stated that the only indemnity is in the measurement or survey of the building/site, an element that eny good architect will check when you get to tender/construction stage.

In your example above, I would still stand my ground. In that case the architect would be deemed responsible for submitting incorrect plans for Planning only and would be legally required to either re-submit the planning and possibly give some comp to the client, or to refund the client partially or fully. (I dont even know if PI wold actually pay out on this) If the client builds off of these 'For Planning Purposes Only' Drawings, they then take the responsibility on for the tender/construction section themselves, which they cannot blame the architect on. The architect will therefore not be liable for the making good of the building or any drawing work related to that section, bar the making good of the planning application for which thye did, hence the reason that their PI will not come into play, if they had it.

ConfusedTech

Also, please don't misunderstand me. I believe fully that all architectural works and surveys should HAVE to be completed with PI cover and this would sort out a big problem that we have in the industry. The reason that it is not is that every individual, whether trained or not, has the right to put in their own Planning Application to demonstrate what they wish to build.

pseudo-tech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

I think that in a case what you note above, even the PI cover may challange the 'professional' that is providing this service for being an idiot or not providing a 'Professional Service'.

The topic seems to have swayed though. We were talking about people providing small one off plannings and domestic work. You can hardly expect some of these people to pay for PI insurance, and they are not required to do so. I clearly stated that the only indemnity is in the measurement or survey of the building/site, an element that eny good architect will check when you get to tender/construction stage.

In your example above, I would still stand my ground. In that case the architect would be deemed responsible for submitting incorrect plans for Planning only and would be legally required to either re-submit the planning and possibly give some comp to the client, or to refund the client partially or fully. (I dont even know if PI wold actually pay out on this) If the client builds off of these 'For Planning Purposes Only' Drawings, they then take the responsibility on for the tender/construction section themselves, which they cannot blame the architect on. The architect will therefore not be liable for the making good of the building or any drawing work related to that section, bar the making good of the planning application for which thye did, hence the reason that their PI will not come into play, if they had it.

I think we agree in principal. However, you have raised a broader question on professionalism and competence. Your PI won't pay out if you have been negligent.

I think all clients deserve to be provided with a professional service but also be protected by PI insurance in case something goes wrong. Would you go to a Doctor for an opinion who doesn't hold insurance??

ConfusedTech

Agreed, and that was my point on some of these areas covered above. Most of the errors were negligence and PI may take issue with you as a 'professional'.

The point of PI has been brought up before though. PI cover is not really regulated, comparing it with a doctor or that type of profession that is stringently regulated, would not be comparable. It is rather easy to get, just not easy to afford! I dont think that it is a good indicator of the quality of the architect, rather that you are covered. Not good having PI cover though if somebody gets killed due to poor professional work, which brings us right back to representation and professionalism. Oh God, not again......................

sydthebeat

Ive started a new thread on this as it was going off topic...

to continue PTs point id like to ask...

If PI insurance DOESNT cover you when you are negligent, then what exactly does it cover you for.

Surely the exact time you would need PI insurance is if you are found to have been negligent, or part negligent, in a court case. If this is the case, and your PI doesnt pay out, then why bother having it in the first place (other than the legal requirement to have it)

pseudo-tech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

Agreed, and that was my point on some of these areas covered above. Most of the errors were negligence and PI may take issue with you as a 'professional'.

The point of PI has been brought up before though. PI cover is not really regulated, comparing it with a doctor or that type of profession that is stringently regulated, would not be comparable. It is rather easy to get, just not easy to afford! I dont think that it is a good indicator of the quality of the architect, rather that you are covered. Not good having PI cover though if somebody gets killed due to poor professional work, which brings us right back to representation and professionalism. Oh God, not again......................

Youre Cat :D

I agree with you. The use of the Doctor analogy was only to highlight the fact that not having PI, at best providing a lesser service than someone who does have PI (to protect a client).

As mentioned in a previous post if you are in private practice and an Architect the RIAI will insist that you have PI. If you are a member of the CIAT and in private practice they will also expect the same as a minimum.

ConfusedTech

Only right for the institutions to insist on it.

Syd, you are right. PI covers you for mistakes/negligence, but I am sure that if they find that you were knowingly, or uprofessionally negligent, you will be blocked from further PI, and I do wonder if it is challangeable. We all make mistakes, but to carry out work that you are incapable of, Should they cover you?

Supertech

If an agent makes an application for a commercial unit and have 2.4 meter high ceiling heights, not allowing for downstand beams or services. When constructed the ceiling height would be less than the required 2.4 meters.

Always thought the required height below downstand beams was 2.1m, is there a definite regulation on that (nervously checks plans:eek:)

By the way, back on topic .... P.I. is essential to anyone providing services to private clients, and as PT has said above is required by all bodies representing professionals in private practice as the mainstay of their membership as a guarantee to the public.

ConfusedTech

Supertech wrote: »

Always thought the required height below downstand beams was 2.1m, is there a definite regulation on that (nervously checks plans:eek:)

By the way, back on topic .... P.I. is essential to anyone providing services to private clients, and as PT has said above is required by all bodies representing professionals in private practice as the mainstay of their membership as a guarantee to the public.

I dont know the regulation, but even 2.4 for a commercial unit, clear, is inadequate. This is only sufficient for domestic at best!

I agree that PI should be a requirement for all professionals whether in an institution or not, but the question arose as to exposure limits at different stages, and as with the discussion on cost v quality, the same argument follows through. Just because somebody has PI, does not mean that they are any better than a guy who does not. Welcome to Ireland!!!

pseudo-tech

ConfusedTech wrote: »

I dont know the regulation, but even 2.4 for a commercial unit, clear, is inadequate. This is only sufficient for domestic at best!

I agree that PI should be a requirement for all professionals whether in an institution or not, but the question arose as to exposure limits at different stages, and as with the discussion on cost v quality, the same argument follows through. Just because somebody has PI, does not mean that they are any better than a guy who does not. Welcome to Ireland!!!

However, If the guy/girl with the insurance make a mistake, there is insurance in place to cover it. If the guy/girl without the insurance make a mistake, there is a possibility that their private home could be looked at.
There is only one option for me!