Article 1 of the Exhibit – Project Goals – allows the parties to describe the project’s green building aims with specificity and align their expectations from the beginning; as many insurers have observed, “claims begin with violated expectations.” Article 5 addresses some of the insurance claims which have been reported to date, and includes language that aims to manage the risks that may arise from the use of experimental products, designs, or building systems. (Note that “aggressive design” was one specific risk identified by Marsh in its report last summer about green building-related risks perceived by A/E/C executives).

However, Article 4 – Remedies, is the provision which I think deserves the most attention. It offers the owner and its design-builder a menu of options to choose in the event that the project fails to earn the anticipated level of LEED or other third-party certification, or other green building project goal that may be described elsewhere in the Exhibit. Critically, though, the obligation for determining whether any green building regulatory requirements exist with which the project must comply rests not with the design-builder, but with the owner. More on that in a moment.

With respect to how potential remedies are organized in Article 4, the owner can first expressly agree that a failure is not a breach of contract, and simply waive any claims against the design-builder arising out of the project’s failure “to satisfy or achieve LEED certification at any level or other sustainable standards.” If the owner’s green goals for the project are purely aspirational, this may be a viable request for the design-builder or contractor to make during negotiations. Of course, if third-party or other certification is required by code or other legislation, such a provision will likely be unacceptable to the owner.

Alternatively, the parties can agree to a fixed dollar amount as liquidated damages in the event of a failure. In this provision, the owner also provides the design-builder with a waiver of claims for other related damages, including consequential damages. As we have discussed here at GRELJ previously, this may be problematic for a variety of reasons. From a legal perspective, whether a liquidated damages provision in this context would be considered a penalty rather than a legitimate estimate of the damages the owner would stand to incur is still a question mark. It will likely be a significant period of time before we have a court opinion weighing on this critical issue.

Finally, the Exhibit includes what I believe to be the most interesting approach to allocating risk in Section 4.3. There, the parties can choose to impose a limited obligation to cure the project’s failure on the design-builder. This obligation is “to cure the situation through the addition, replacement or correction of materials, configurations, systems or equipments in order to obtain the level of LEED certification indicated above and/or to satisfy or achieve other sustainable standards as are identified, or as required by the Legal Requirements [defined in Article 3 of the Exhibit].”

However, the extent of the curing costs for which the design-builder will be responsible is limited to: (i) any remaining funds in the construction contingency (typically a percentage of the overall cost of the work that exists to cover unanticipated construction expenses, which requires the builder to obtain the owner’s prior written approval before accessing it); (ii) the design-builder’s share in the savings if the cost of the work comes in less than the design-builder’s guaranteed maximum price of the work; or (iii) a fixed sum agreed to by the parties.

What is also important to note about the Exhibit is that it places the obligation for determining the Legal Requirements (again, as defined in Article 3) squarely on the shoulders of the owner. In other words, the party which is generally in the least adequate position to determine what those legal requirements might be is actually responsible for them by contract. This makes little sense, and I cannot imagine an owner agreeing to carry that burden, particularly in the current regulatory climate which is changing so rapidly and varies so widely depending on the particular jurisdiction. It seems like an odd approach, and I am curious if anyone has any insight or feedback as to why DBIA crafted Article 3 in this manner.

The entire Exhibit is certainly worth reviewing in detail, but one other provision that I want to draw your particular attention to is Section 6.2, which states clearly that “[i]n no event shall the dates of Substantial Completion and Final Completion be contingent on any certification of the Project to meet any level of the USGBC’s LEED rating system or other similar system.” This is critical, particularly where project schedules are tight and other penalties – liquidated or otherwise – may begin accruing if substantial completion is not reached as required.

One other final thought – it’s also interesting to me that the first green building contract addendum – the AIA’s B214-2004 – purely addressed scope when it debuted three years ago. Notwithstanding the inherent limitations with form contracts and exhibits, and the fact that scope documents such as the B214 do remain useful tools for project teams, the industry clearly perceives risks arising out of green building projects. I anticipate that we will see more organizations developing and promoting similar consensus documents with risk management provisions as we continue to move forward in 2010.

The Addendum also creates a new role for design professionals, contractors, or consultants: the Green Building Facilitator, responsible under the terms of the Addendum for coordinating and facilitating the process of obtaining the owner’s desired green building status or certification, identifying green building measures (both procedural and physical), potential design and construction alternatives, and other services as required by the terms of the Addendum. The Green Building Facilitator is identified explicitly in Section 4 of the Addendum and can be the architect, engineer, contractor, or other corporate entity (or individual). However, the Addendum places certain risks on the Facilitator, and parties that choose to accept this role pursuant to the Addendum should review its terms and conditions carefully.

What’s most interesting for purposes of this article, though, is that Article 8 of the Addendum is devoted exclusively to risk allocation. Article 8.2 provides that the parties- including the Green Building Facilitator- will be subject to any limitations on liability that are included in their underlying contracts. However, this provision explicitly acknowledges that the owner’s “loss of income or profit or inability to realize potential reductions in operating, maintenance, or other related costs, tax, or other similar benefits or credits, marketing opportunities and other similar opportunities or benefits, resulting from a failure to attain the [project’s green building goals as defined in the Addendum] shall be deemed consequential damages subject to any applicable waiver of consequential damages” in any underlying design or construction contract. Compare this provision to the discussion which arose out of the Shaw Development litigation, where many commentators wondered what types of damages flowing from the breach of a green building contract would be deemed consequential in nature rather than direct. It’s therefore particularly noteworthy that the Addendum (i) acknowledges the types of unique damages that may flow from the breach of a green construction contract; and (ii) actually makes an initial effort at defining them. Of course, parties are free to negotiate the terms of the Addendum, including (depending on the project’s scope) (i) the types of damages which would be included in the provision; and (ii) any waivers – mutual or otherwise – in the underlying agreement. In Shaw, as you will recall, the issue was whether the lost tax credits were consequential and therefore waived by the owner through the A201’s mutual waiver provision; under the form terms of the Addendum, they would have been explicitly categorized as consequential. Had the parties in Shaw implemented a document like the Addendum, it would have assisted them in more comprehensively assessing the green building-related risk associated with the project and allocating that risk accordingly.

The Addendum also makes it clear that no project participant other than the Green Building Facilitator will be “liable or responsible for the failure of [any procedural or physical green measures] to achieve the [project’s green building goals as defined in the Addendum],” including the project’s failure to earn any third-party certification as designated in the Addendum. However, the Addendum also makes clear that these limitations on the project team’s liability do not relieve them “from any obligation to perform or provide [procedural or physical green measures]” as required by their underlying contracts. It will be interesting to see if additional form green building contracts and/or addenda are issued in 2010, whether they take these types of risks and limitations on liability into account, and, if so, in what particular fashion.

As you may know, ConsensusDOCS was founded in 2007 and, to date, its suite of form design and construction agreements has been endorsed by 23 different A/E/C organizations. You can download a copy of the Addendum via the link below. As always, the Arent Fox Green Building & Sustainability and Construction Practice Groups are happy to assist you with any additional questions you might have about either the Addendum or working with construction contracts generally.

• 310 Green Building Addendum (ConsensusDOCS)
• New Document Defines Role in Green Building Projects (Arch. Record)

First, the design professional who functions as an advocate, extolling the promises of increased energy efficiency, asset values, and rental premiums of LEED-certified buildings is creating a corresponding high expectation in the eyes of his or her client. As we noted over at gbNYC in the aftermath of a BIM/green building panel held here in New York City nearly two years ago, insurance industry professionals will almost always observe that claims start with violated expectations. As architect and attorney Fred Butters points out in his seminal Real Estate Issues article, Greening the Standard of Care: Evolving Legal Standards of Practice for the Architect in a Sustainable World, “[i]f the architect does not clearly and sufficiently indicate the positives and negatives [of green building installations, technologies, or certification programs], the client will be looking to the architect to make him or her whole. Becoming an advocate for many types of sustainable approaches may cause the design professional to overlook the messy reality for the sake of being a good advocate.”

Butters also points out that “[i]f the architect is serving as an educator, the client’s decision to ‘go green’ may be only that- the client’s decision. However, if the architect is ‘encouraging’ or ‘advocating’ for the incorporation of green features, his or her advice is implicated in the design decision. In that instance, the possibility that the architect can avoid the effect of the client’s unmet expectations is low.” Advocating for LEED or other green design features may also implicate standard of care issues, potentially elevating that standard beyond what prevails for architects and engineers in their particular geographic location. As we have noted previously, this amounts to an assumption of liability above what is imposed by law; most professional liability policies will exclude coverage for claims where the design professional has failed to satisfy that heightened standard.

What makes this issuer thornier, though, is that the architect actually does, in fact, have an obligation- both in the 2007 version of the AIA contract documents, and the new AIA Canon of Ethics- to promote sustainable design practices. For example, Canon VI, Obligations to the Environment, requires the architect to “advocate the design, construction, and operation of sustainable buildings and communities.” (Ethical Standard 6.2). In performing design work, the architect “should be environmentally responsible and advocate sustainable building and site design.” (Ethical Standard 6.1). As Mr. Butters also points out, and as we’ve noted here at GRELJ previously, the B201 (2007) Owner – Architect Agreement contains similar requirements:

§ 3.2.3 The Architect shall present its preliminary evaluation to the Owner and shall discuss with the Owner alternative approaches to design and construction of the Project, including the feasibility of incorporating environmentally responsible design approaches.

§ 3.2.5.1 The Architect shall consider environmentally responsible design alternatives, such as material choices and building orientation.

The National Society of Professional Engineers’ Code of Ethics contains a similar obligation under Professional Obligations, III.2.d: “[e]ngineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” The design professional is thus placed in a delicate position; professionally, it has an obligation to promote sustainability, but at what potential perils?

Mr. Yudelson’s remarks are also important to note in light of our recent article here at GRELJ about the insurance coverage implications of the Energy Ace LEED certification “guarantee.” Unbridled green building advocacy could also provide an insurance carrier with the argument that the design professional has provided the functional equivalent of a guarantee- either LEED certification, performance, or otherwise- that might give the carrier grounds to deny coverage for negligence claims arising out of the project. For example, and as we noted previously, “the concept of a guarantee is essentially representing perfection; anything less is a breach of contract, claims for which are similarly not covered by a professional liability policy (though the insurer may still defend under the policy but reserve its rights). In short, absent confirmation from the carrier that coverage will remain available, it will continue to be dangerous for parties that maintain professional liability insurance to make the types of representations implicated by the Energy Ace guarantee.”

I think it’s therefore worth repeating that while the analysis of green building legal issues related to standards of care, professional liability insurance, and LEED building performance continue to play out, architects and engineers should be particularly careful when making the types of representations that Mr. Yudelson suggests when participating in the design of green construction projects.

• Green Building Consultant Challenges San Antonio City Groups to Welcome “New Green Era” (PR)
• Green Insurance Law: Thoughts on BIM and LEED Coverage for Design Professionals (gbNYC)

First, I think it’s important to note at the outset that in most jurisdictions- including New York- there is no statutory obligation for a party to carry professional liability insurance, though of course most owners will insist upon it where that party is rendering architectural or engineering design services. Accordingly, absent additional information, we don’t know what type of insurance Energy Ace typically procures or the scope of any discussions it had with its carrier in considering the coverage implications of announcing its guarantee. These are critical inquiries because, as you know, most professional liability insurance policies exclude coverage for claims arising out of the breach of warranty or guarantee. However, the notion that a limitation of liability provision in a contract for LEED certification services is novel is misplaced; most LEED consultants will typically limit their liability for such services to the total amount of their fee (and do not carry a corresponding professional liability policy).

Second, I also thought that the following quote from Mr. Robertson, sourced by Andrew Burr in CoStar discussing the Energy Ace guarantee’s genesis at a meeting where local stakeholders reviewed Atlanta’s pending LEED ordinance, was particularly interesting: “[o]ne of the senior architects [who attended the meeting] was saying that these mandates are putting us in a position to offer a guarantee and we can’t do that. And I’m thinking, yes we can.” For design professionals or LEED consultants who do maintain professional liability insurance, providing an explicit guarantee of ultimate certification level or other performance is indeed problematic on that basis. However, the more troubling possibility is that a guarantee in this context might also give a professional liability insurance carrier grounds to deny coverage for any other negligence claim arising out of the project but not specifically tied to the guarantee. Moreover, the concept of a guarantee is essentially representing perfection; anything less is a breach of contract, claims for which are similarly not covered by a professional liability policy (though the insurer may still defend under the policy but reserve its rights). Guarantees also elevate the professional’s standard of care beyond what is imposed by law; again, potentially triggering another another form policy exclusion that could lead the insurer to disclaim coverage. In short, absent confirmation from the carrier that coverage will remain available, it will continue to be dangerous for parties that maintain professional liability insurance to make the types of representations implicated by the Energy Ace guarantee.

Finally, putting aside insurance considerations, the question remains as to the extent a court would uphold a limitation on liability provision for LEED certification services where the economic losses sustained by the plaintiff for the LEED consultant’s negligence were disproportionate to the fee. In New York, at least, courts will review limitation of liability clauses with heightened scrutiny, particularly if they purport to reduce a party’s exposure to damages for its own negligence. If Energy Ace (or any other LEED consultant) breached a guarantee, the project failed to obtain certification, and certain financial incentives were lost or other damages resulted, a court might be inclined to strike the provision. For example, in Shaw Development, the owner’s counterclaims against Southern Builders included two separate counts for breach of contract and negligence for Southern Builders’ “fail[ure] to construct the Project in conformance with a Silver level of certification according to USGBC’s LEED system,” with both claims seeking damages for the project’s failure to qualify for $635,000 in state-level green building tax credits. Although in Shaw Development the receipt of formal LEED certification was not a prerequisite to the owner obtaining the tax credits, the Shaw facts do suggest the kinds of damages that could flow from the breach of a LEED certification guarantee in a jurisdiction where applicable legislation is tied to formal certification. A discussion of green building consequential damages is beyond the scope of this particular article, but it is important to note the possibility that they may arise and be quite significant.

• LEED Certification or Your Money Back (CoStar)

The much more practical research that I turned up was the following except from an article by Kelly Luckett, the self-proclaimed “Green Roof Guy” who writes a column for greenroofs.com. In a column from the very end of 2008, Mr. Luckett describes how uneducated project teams may unwittingly expose themselves to unanticipated risks stemming from the maintenance requirements of green roof installations. His remarks also reflect a number of key points we’ve made consistently both here at GRELJ and over at gbNYC with respect to the additional risk management strategies demanded by new green building technologies and third-party certification programs.

It is also interesting to note that, for the particular project that he describes below, LEED certification requirements resulted in the green roof’s irrigation system being disconnected after the initial green roof establishment period, which resulted in a roof that did not appear as anticipated by the owner. One last important thought- Mr. Luckett hints that this project was located in Toronto, which, as you’ll recall, recently passed a green roof mandate. I think this is a great example of how legislation is fueling the types of liabilities that we grapple with here at GRELJ, and why, as always, contract language will remain paramount for green building project teams.

I would like to turn the focus now to an issue that continues to plague the green roof industry: the maintenance-free green roof myth.  Some in the media continue to espouse this nonexistent characteristic of green roofs resulting in many of our customers being painfully uneducated about realities of critical green roof maintenance!

Pretty strong language, I know, but the problem doesn’t seem to be getting better.  Let me tell you a story about my company’s largest project.  It’s a government owned project in the city that has become the nation’s green roof capitol; you know the place.  I sat in on a meeting where the general contractor, the architect, and the roofing contractor removed all mention of maintenance guidelines and the Plant Health Alert System from my submittal package!

For those of you outside the construction industry, a submittal package is a gathering of documents and drawings the subcontractor submits to the architect and owner to demonstrate compliance with the specifications for products or portions of the construction project.  When I questioned why they were removing critical pages of information from my submittals, I was told that they eliminated the irrigation system for this 96,000 square foot green roof based on a tour a green roof provider took the owner on during the preceding spring.  I asked if they had told them about the drought that killed green roof plants all over the region the summer before, to which I only received blank stares.  I practically had to threaten to hold my breath until I turned blue, or at least threaten to walk away from the project to get them to issue a change order to put the irrigation system back in.

The green roof was planted in June and July, 2007, and required routine irrigation throughout the establishment period, a task that could not be accomplished over 96,000 square feet using a garden hose.  After alleviating concerns over the irrigation system conflicting with LEED certification requirements by agreeing to disconnect the system after the establishment period, the change order was issued.  However, I insisted that the irrigation system remain in place as insurance should drought conditions require its activation to keep the $250,000 worth of plants alive.

Now fast forward two years. The phone rings; it’s the roofing contractor.  The ownership is requesting a walkthrough to discuss the condition of the green roof.  I asked our horticulturist to accompany me to the autumn meeting on the rooftop. We were greeted by the general contractor, the architect, the roofing contractor, and a clearly unhappy owner’s representative.  The condition of the green roof?  Starving sedums due to absence of the fertilizer that was supposed to have been applied the previous spring, per the maintenance guidelines that the ownership never got to see.

Also, since the plants did not receive the food required to grow and cover the surface of the growth media, the weeds moved in.  The good news –  the weeds will die over the winter and an application of fertilizer next spring will allow the plants to thrive.  The bad news – the project lost the opportunity for the plants to grow in one of the wettest growing seasons on record.  As you can imagine, there was a round of discussion about who was supposed to have provided the maintenance, a discussion that may wind up being continued in a court room.

However, the owner’s representative asked why the irrigation system was still there.  When the general contractor started to speak he was stopped by the owner’s representative who said the question was directed to me.  Before I could answer, another question was posed, “Do you tell your customers that they need to provide irrigation for their green roof?”  To which I replied, “Absolutely yes, every single one of them.”

The owner’s representative, clearly not expecting this answer, became even more agitated.  That’s when I began to appreciate how serious this problem has gotten for the green roof industry.  The owner’s representative placed in charge of one the city’s largest green roofs, in arguably the most green roof educated city in the nation, was utterly surprised by the fact that plants need food and water.  The building code issue evoked an urgent call to arms that brought about action by many and opened lines of communication among perceived adversaries, while lack of proper green roof maintenance poses far more serious threat to the green roof concept yet the green roof industry remains largely quiet.

Admittedly, nobody uses discussing maintenance during the green roof sale as their go-to closing strategy, but it’s a lot healthier for a green roof business in the long run to address this issue upfront rather than standing in the middle of a problem on a green roof facing an unhappy and uneducated customer the following season.  I’ll keep working on the code issues on behalf of the industry, but it’s time the industry start working on this much larger problem.

• The Green Roof Guy (greenroofs.com)
• Green Roof Archive (GRELJ)

However, I think it’s important to look at the specific language that provides for decertification in LEED 2009, which reads (in part) as follows: “certification may be revoked from any LEED project upon gaining knowledge of non-compliance with any applicable MPR.” (emphasis added). The way I read this language, USGBC/GBCI is not obligated to revoke certification upon learning of non-compliance, but it is not restricted from receiving information regarding non-compliance from any third party. The question then becomes what, if any, obligations USGBC/GBCI may have to use that information and pursue a decertification proceeding, either conferred elsewhere in the LEED rating system itself or otherwise imposed by law. I don’t know the answer to that question, but perhaps Ujjval or others could chime in below in the comments. I think this is an absolutely critical point to dissect.

Also of import in the ENR article with respect to the MPR requiring access to building performance data (which has been the MPR driving much of the risk discussion here at GRELJ and elswhere), Duane Morris construction attorney Ed Gentilcore emphasizes that “[w]hat was once an initial project-performance milestone now has ongoing tail responsibilities that could create extended obligations for the owner itself and possibly, in turn, design and construction teams.” In addition, Scot Horst told ENR in the same article that the organization is “still developing the best and easiest ways to help owners do this. This is a new requirement and there is a lot to work out over time.” He declined to tell ENR when any addenda to the MPRs might be released.

I think it’s clear that the contract challenges and corresponding risks associated with the new LEED 2009 MPRs are just begin to emerge, particularly if USGBC and GBCI release a second addenda to a document that was just released a few months ago.

• Building Rating System Requirement Raises Concerns (ENR)

I think that this latter point is critical- as I wrote previously here at GRELJ, most professional liability insurance policies contain an exclusion for assumptions of liability that are not imposed by law (i.e., because the LEED AP Fellow designation implies that the design professional will perform at a higher level than the prevailing common law standard, the design professional may not be covered for any resulting claims of negligent design services arising out of disputed green design services). It seems to me that if the LEED AP fellow designation implies a higher standard of care than is prevalent in the industry, this type of form exclusion would come into play. Accordingly, I am very curious to see if there is any reaction from insurance industry professionals on this crucial issue.

Nevertheless, although the idea that programs like LEED and green design techniques generally are changing the standard of care for design professionals is nothing new, the Schinnerer report is the first time I have seen a major insurer pointing to the new tiered LEED AP program as playing a role in that uptick. The report also emphasizes the importance of a “mutual understanding on designing for sustainability and certification,” and offers two form contract provisions that should serve as a good jumping off point for design professionals concerned about risk management on green building projects.

The same section of the report discussing the new LEED AP program also identifies the “successful marketing of the LEED program” and state and local governments’ tying of certain project-based incentives to private certification as a potential source of “significant financial repercussions if a project is not granted a desired level of LEED certification” (likely a reference to the Shaw Development litigation). The report rather ominously suggests that “[g]overnmental enticements to support the pursuit of these LEED accredited projects and their environmentally conscious goals represent a level of risk that approaches a project-level warranty.” The danger here, of course, is that any claims alleging a breach of such a warranty would likely be excluded by a design professional’s controlling errors and omissions policy, and the notion that legislation may be creating the equivalent of a warranty is certainly interesting to consider.

Finally, on page 5, the report proposes two form contract provisions for design professionals to consider incorporating into green construction contracts. The first reflects the situation where an owner may want certain green building materials or systems incorporated into the design, and the second where the Owner intends to seek third-party certification. These provisions are merely form language and should be treated as such by design professionals; the report does explicitly note the important of assessing risk on project-by-project basis, as well as retaining counsel to draft provisions that reflect the circumstances of a given project. As the Shaw Development litigation teaches, this is the threshold consideration for a green building project team. Each of the provisions is reprinted below for your reference:

When Owner Wants the Design to Meet Specific Sustainability Criteria

Owner has made Design Firm aware that Owner wants a specific level of sustainability incorporated into this Project and that Design Firm shall use the standards published by [specific design guidelines or certification standard] for this Project. Design Firm shall research the applicable sustainability requirements and design the Project with the intentino of having the Project meet the requirements. Owner recognizes that a project designed to meet a specific sustainability standard might not perform as designed because of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project and therefore agrees that it shall bring no claim against Design Firm if the project does not perform as intended, unless the negligence of the Design Firm is the sole cause of the performance deficiency.

Owner also recognizes that during the design of the Project, Design Firm shall use professional judgment in the selection of materials, products, and systems for the Project but that Design Firm cannot and does not warrant the performance of any specified material, product or system. Design Firm will identify for Owner any material, product, or system that, in the Design Firm’s judgment from the Design Firm’s examination of available performance information, might provide Owner with a benefit on this Project but does not have adequate information on its performance in actual construction or operation. Owner acknowledges that it shall look solely to the manufacturer, supplier or installer of materials, products, or systems if their performance does not meet expectations.

When Owner Wants Third-Party Certification of Sustainability

Owner has made Design Firm aware that Owner intends to pursue [specific certification standard] for this Project. Design Firm shall research the applicable certification requirements, design the Project with the intention of having the Project meet the requirements, and document the design of the Project for submission by the Owner to the certifying organization. Owner recognizes that certification is not based on design alone but also on the construction, operation and maintenance of the Project and therefore agrees that it shall bring no claim against Design Firm if the Project is not certified as intended unless the negligence of the Design Firm is the sole cause of the Project not being certified.

Owner also recognizes that during the design of the Project, Design Firm shall use professional judgment in the selection of materials, products and systems for the Project with the goal of meeting certification criteria but that Design Firm cannot and does not warrant the performance of any specified material, product, or system. Design Firm will identify for Owner for any material, product or system that, in the Design Firm’s judgment from the Design Firm’s examination of available performance information, might provide Owner with a benefit on this Project but does not have adequate information on its performance in actual construction or operation. Owner acknowledges that it shall look solely to the manufacturer, supplier or installer of materials, products or systems if their performance does not meet expectations.

The full report is available via the link below for your review.

• Victor O. Schinnerer & Company, Inc. – Guidelines for Improving Practice (No. 3, 2009)
• LEED AP = Higher Standard of Care (Real Life LEED)

There are two key questions for owners and design professionals to consider in connection with standard of care provisions in construction agreements: (1) has the design professional agreed to perform at a higher standard of care than that which prevails in the industry? and (2) has the design professional provided the equivalent of a warranty or guarantee to the owner with respect to the services that it will render? Language that obligates the design professional to satisfy “the highest standards of the profession” or “the standards of similar firms with extensive green design expertise” is ambiguous and may allow an insurance carrier to argue that the design professional agreed to perform with a higher level of care for which insurance coverage may be unavailable. This is because most professional liability insurance policies contain an exclusion for assumptions of liability that are not imposed by law (i.e., by agreeing to perform at a higher level than the prevailing common law standard, the design professional will not be covered for any resulting claims of negligent design services). Such language may also be construed by a court to be the functional equivalent of a warranty or guarantee in the event of a dispute; as set forth below, most professional liability policies exclude coverage for these types of claims as well.

Performance-based (i.e., “this design will achieve a LEED Gold rating” or “will reduce operating costs by 50 percent”) language in a standard of care provision may also be problematic if the insurer believes that the design professional has provided the owner with the equivalent of a warranty or guarantee. For example, in a case out of the Eighth Circuit, an engineer agreed to provide an owner with “[t]he necessary engineering plant layout and equipment design and the on-site engineering supervision and start up engineering services necessary for the construction of a hully by-product facility capable of reducing a minimum of 7.5 tons of rice hulls per hour to an ash and producing a minimum of 48 million BTUs per hour of steam at 200 pounds pressure.” Arkansas Rice Growers Co-op Ass’n v. Alchemy Indus. Inc., 797 F.2d 565 (8th Cir. 1986). The plant never operated as intended, and the owner sued the engineer. The court expressly held that the design professional had “warranted that a plant constructed according to the design was capable of achieving the performance criteria” and noted that “[t]he evidence is undisputed that the plant was never capable of achieving the performance criteria on a sustained basis.” Professional liability policies generally exclude coverage for claims arising out of the breach of a warranty or guarantee. Both owners and design professionals should thus review language in their construction agreements for provisions that could potentially be construed by an insurer as the equivalent of a warranty or guarantee, particularly with respect to the project achieving a certain level of LEED or other third-party certification.

It is also important to note that the form standard of care language in the AIA’s B101 Owner – Architect Agreement (2007), which is found in Section 2.2, states that “[t]he Architect shall perform its services consistent with the professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances. The Architect shall perform its services as expeditiously as is consistent with such professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Project.” This language mirrors the common law standard of care which a professional liability policy will insure against. However, exactly what constitutes the “professional skill and care ordinarily provided by architects (or engineers, as the case may be) practicing in the same or similar locality under the same or similar circumstances” is a much thornier question; this standard is, by nature, not objective but subjective; it changes periodically based on the prevailing level of competency of other similarly-situated professionals in the same geographic region.

Although professional liability insurance will track the prevailing standard of care, as we noted previously in an article over at gbNYC, and as attorney/architect Fred Butters discusses extensively in his article in Understanding the Business of Green, there is no question that LEED and green building practices generally are shifting the standard of care for design professionals to a higher level. For example, new obligations in the 2007 version of the AIA documents and Canon of Ethics require the architect to recommend sustainable design alternatives to the owner. Moreover, the proliferation of the LEED AP and other representations that many architects and engineers are making throughout the industry with respect to their sustainable design expertise is increasing the expectation that such design professionals will deliver a design that performs at a higher level than in the past. The danger here is for design professionals who are not sufficiently well-versed in green design; if the standard of care has increased, are such design professionals failing to satisfy the prevailing standard of care and thus exposing themselves to claims for negligent design work? This is not an insurance coverage question, but nevertheless an important consideration for both construction attorneys and insurance professionals to monitor closely in the months ahead.

Owners and design professionals must consider the foregoing standard of care considerations in connection with green building projects and should discuss the professional liability insurance coverage implications of such provisions with their insurance carriers if they have yet to do so already. A more general discussion of whether certain representations in standard of care provisions will be deemed by the carrier as raising the standard of care beyond the prevailing common law standard is also advisable. Regardless, it is critical for design professionals to keep in mind that because the standard of care is a moving target, paying careful attention to the language in such provisions during the course of construction contract negotiations for a green building project is imperative.

Green roofs have been a part of building for over a thousand years. The current green building movement has, however, had the greatest impact on the growth of the green roofing industry. A green roof is commonly defined as a roof that consists of vegetation and soil, or a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing membrane. There are two basic types of green roofs: (i) an extensive roof, which has a few inches of soil cover; and (ii) an intensive roof that has two feet or more of soil for a variety of grass, trees, bushes and shrubs. Green roofs are used in a multitude of buildings, including industrial facilities, commercial offices, retail properties and residences. The benefits of a green roof include reduced storm-water runoff, absorption of air pollution, reduced heat island effect, protection of underlying roof material from sunlight, reduced noise, and insulation from extreme temperatures. A green roof can thus be a critical design element for a green building. As more properties across the country are attempting to obtain LEED certification, it is worth noting that a green roof can help a property obtain over a dozen LEED credits, including credits for reduced site disturbance, landscape design that reduces urban heat islands, storm water management, water efficient landscaping, innovative wastewater technologies and innovation in design. The increase in green roofs and the green building movement is also resulting in an increase in liability resulting from errors in the design, installation or maintenance of green roofs. As a result, owners, design professionals and contractors should carefully consider ways to mitigate the potential risks involved with building a green roof.

In order to mitigate liability, the stakeholders in a project that features a green roof should clearly detail their expectations and performance requirements in their contracts. This will require preparing contracts that might not easily fit within standard forms of architect and construction contracts. A clear example of green roof liability was detailed by Frank Musica at the AIA Convention 2007. In that instance, the green roof contractor and structural engineer failed to communicate the specifics of the green roof. The result was water leakage and significant structural damage. This scenario could have been avoided by simple communication. One can easily imagine potential disputes arising from any of these following situations: (i) failure to deliver the energy efficiency levels claimed by the installation of a green roof; (ii) failure to deliver a green roof that results in the claimed number of LEED credits that should be awarded by the USGBC; (iii) mold or other environmental hazards as a result of poor maintenance of a green roof; or (iv) a roof collapse resulting from a green roof that was not properly constructed, installed or maintained. Parties should look to limit unnecessary liability by drafting contracts that clearly detail how the applicable parties will be responsible for each of the above-mentioned items. Although liability for said items is not able to be eliminated, it is important to all stakeholders that it is appropriately detailed in contract form, instead of by a judge or jury.

Green building owners and general contractors should engage experienced green roofing professionals when building a green roof. The green roofing industry has begun to assist in this regard by designating such professionals in a manner similar to that of the USGBC’s LEED Green Associate or Accredited Professional designations. Green Roofs for Healthy Cities has established the Green Roof Professional (“GRP”), which designation was created to distinguish certain individuals that have achieved a specific knowledge level with regard to green roof design, project management, installation and maintenance.  The goal of the designation level is to allow green roofing professionals to differentiate themselves, establish an increased level of professionalism in the green roofing industry and help protect the public health, safety and welfare by the building of better green roofs. I would strongly encourage clients to seek GRPs when working on a green roof in an attempt to mitigate unforeseen liability. It is worth noting, however, that one likely unintended consequence of this accreditation program for GRPs is that they could very well be held too a higher standard of care should any problems occur following the installation, repair or maintenance of a green roof.

Green roofs provide a benefit to the environment, energy efficiency related savings to property owners and tenants and potential credits for owners seeking LEED or other third-party green building certification for their property. The legal risks and potential liabilities of green roofs should, however, be carefully examined, both by companies considering installing a green roof and by green roof professionals themselves before getting involved with any green roofing project.

Geoff White is a Senior Associate in the Commercial Transactions and Real Estate Group at Frost Brown Todd.  He is a LEED Green Associate (LEED GA) and a Fellow of the Institute of Green Professionals (FIGP).  A sizeable portion of his practice is spent advising clients on the legal issues of green building and sustainable development.  He recently co-authored the chapter “Understanding and Mitigating the Legal Risks of Green Building,” in the Aspatore Books Inside The Minds – Negotiating and Structuring Construction Contracts.  Mr. White is licensed to practice law in Kentucky and Ohio.  Contact him at gwhite@fbtlaw.com or (502) 568-0202.

First, in the MPR preamble, the LEED v3 program expressly provides GBCI with the ability to revoke LEED certification “upon gaining knowledge of non-compliance with any applicable MPRs.” It is thus crucial that project teams consider and comply with each MPR, particularly if the project seeks to take advantage of a state- or local-level LEED-driven incentive program that is keyed to the receipt of formal certification. While we have yet to see LEED-certified project have its certification revoked, an interesting question could arise here if a state or local government that had provided a project with an incentive upon certification sough to recoup those incentives if the project was de-certified by GBCI. Even thornier would be the scenario where a project that was required to earn certification under a legislative mandate loses certification. The corresponding liability-related issues would of course flow downstream and impact each member of the project team. MPR 1 actually obligates every LEED-hopeful project to “be designed to comply with all applicable USA federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations in place where the project is located and at the time of design and construction.” Comprehensive legislative surveys and strong contract language emphasizing regulatory compliance will thus be a priority for project teams under the LEED v3 regime.

From a legal perspective, MPR 7 is perhaps the most important to consider: “all certified projects must commit to allow USGBC to access all available actual whole-project energy and water usage data in the future for research purposes.” Moreover, “[t]his commitment must carry forward if the building changes ownership.” For attorneys, it will be an interesting challenge to draft such a covenant that will bind subsequent purchases of real property (or, in the context of LEED-CS and LEED-CI 2009 MPRs, subsequent tenants). For owners and project teams, it will be imperative to recognize that such language must be translated into purchase agreements or leasing documents such that GBCI cannot revoke a project’s LEED certification. More generally, it will be interesting to see if any private owners balk at granting USGBC access to such data, and whether there are any local legal obstacles (in terms of building codes, utility regulations, etc.) that may make it difficult for owners to provide the data as required by LEED v3.

Applicable MPRs are set forth below as printed in the text of the New Construction and Major Renovations rating system. Note that I have also set forth MPR 6 below, which lays out certain timeframes that project teams should remain aware of. I anticipate that there will be much more analysis of these and other provisions in LEED v3 as more project teams become familiar with the terms and scope of the program; please feel free to suggest any additional legal issues that we may have missed in the comments below.

Minimum Program Requirements (“MPRs”) – LEED 2009 – New Construction and Major Renovations

• LEED Version 3 (USGBC)

Specifically, while the new Stadium was projected to more or less play the same as the old one across the street, a number of factors that the Yankees and their design team may not have considered, underestimated, or were outside of their control all along have resulted in a drastically different performance than the club anticipated. For example, the new Stadium stands sixty feet taller and concourses on each level of seating are exposed to the building’s exterior, which may be creating a wind tunnel effect that is blowing baseballs out towards the fences. Interestingly, the Yankees and their engineers are not entirely certain about what will happen to these wind patterns once the old Stadium is razed as demolition has yet to start in earnest.

The analogy here, of course, is where policymakers, owners, or other stakeholders make legislative or project-related choices that are based on projections which do not accurately reflect actual performance once a structure is brought online; these dangers are even more acute where contract documents obligate a project team to achieve a certain level of performance or fixed reduction in operating expenses that are based on a predictive model. The reasons why a building’s performance could diverge may be complex and entirely unanticipated by stakeholders; building science is complicated and buildings themselves are complex systems for which modeling does not always reflect reality. The experience at New Yankee Stadium to date may be a rather simplistic example, but I do think it helps make the point that predicting performance and evaluating performance based on actual data are two very different ballgames.

The paper is essentially divided into five sections: (1) general points about whether risk exists for real estate stakeholders in connection with green building projects; (2) a brief overview of some emerging regulatory concerns; (3) whether increasing concerns about achieving LEED certification are valid; (4) a discussion of new products and technologies as risk concerns; and (5) how knowledge, experience, and contracts can help green building project stakeholders mitigate green building risk. The paper unquestionably provides a good legal primer with respect to each of these issues but injects a tone of commentary into the discussion that unnecessarily trivializes many of the legal issues that the green construction bar continues to grapple with. For example, the paper starts out by stating that “[a]ccording to insurance professionals . . . there have been very few claims reported arising out of sustainable design to date, despite concerns to the contrary. The risks to architects in ‘building green’ are essentially the same as the risks on other projects.” Standard of care and insurance coverage issues, for example, have many design professionals, their insurers, and even owners concerned about the availability of coverage in event of a claim that arises out of disputed green design services. While general principles of construction law will always apply to every project, calling their application in novel contexts to be simply “old bottles” suggests that there is no additional risk for project teams to consider or attorneys to address in contract documents.

One specific point made in the paper that’s also worth noting relates to the factual posture of the Shaw Development case. The paper incorrectly states that Maryland’s green building tax credit program which was at issue in the lawsuit was “limited to qualifying LEED projects and restricted to a set window of time. The project did not have LEED qualification within the window of time and Shaw sued for damages for the loss of the tax credits.” As you’ll recall, the issue in Shaw was the parties’ failure to understand the applicable tax credit program, which required a certificate of occupancy by a certain fixed date in order for a LEED-hopeful project to take advantage of tax credits; formal LEED certification was not required. Shaw emphasizes that legislative schemes are among the fundamental drivers of green building risk and must be clearly understood and accurately reflected by controlling contract documents.

Additionally, on page 5, the paper states that “[w]hile some commentators recommend avoiding guarantees, a precise contract can appropriately define the guarantee and mitigate risk.” However, there is no detailed discussion of exactly how stakeholders might begin to craft such provisions. More critically, the paper fails to discuss why even the appearance of the equivalent of a warranty or a guarantee or an elevated standard of care may be problematic from the perspective of a professional liability policy (i.e., these are form exclusions to the standard policy which most architects and engineers are required to procure on every project by contract). The Marsh end-of-year report from 2008 makes it clear that professional liability insurers are keenly monitoring this area of activity with heightened scrutiny. While standard exclusions to a professional liability policy are indeed traditional components of construction law, it is also clear that the rapidly moving standard of care for design professionals is unprecedented, and its implications should not be understated by attorneys who represent architects and engineers.

I want to emphasize that I am not criticizing USGBC’s effort to foster discussion about these important issues; rather, I think it’s extremely positive that the organization has taken this initial step towards engaging the legal industry in refining the parameters of green building risk management. As I noted last November over at gbNYC, this was a major shortcoming at last year’s Greenbuild and it’s encouraging that USGBC has started to move in a different direction. However, I think it is troubling that the paper chose to characterize green building law as “new wine in old bottles.” In my opinion, the reasons why many of the issues noted in the paper are creating a new paradigm meriting the attention of both legal scholars and practitioners are four-pronged: regulatory activity at the federal, state, and local levels is moving more rapidly than anyone can track in sufficient detail; the insurance coverage implications for claims arising out of green design have been largely unremarked upon; the insurance industry itself has acknowledged that the standard of care for design professionals is changing more quickly than at any time in history thanks to the proliferation of the LEED AP and green design obligations in the new AIA construction documents; and preliminary data suggesting that green buildings may not perform at the higher level generally anticipated by most project teams may have significant consequences both in terms of litigation and future policymaking. These are a set of completely new and emerging legal issues that will have a major impact on how attorneys create risk management strategies for their clients as green construction practices continue to proliferate. Suggesting otherwise will likely damage the long-term prospects of the green building movement, particularly if it encourages stakeholders not to take these emerging risks seriously and engage counsel capable of assisting them in navigating unchartered waters.

The paper is a quick read and I hope you will print it, review it, and share your thoughts in the comments below.

• The Legal Risk in Building Green (USGBC)

• The Anatomy of America’s First Green Building Litigation (gbNYC)

• West Coast Green Panel Discusses Risk Management for Green Building Projects (gbNYC)
• Minimizing Green Building Risks (Greener Buildings)
• Listening to Greenbuild (Green Building Law Blog)