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)

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)

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 claim that made the biggest splash with my audience yesterday was where Musica reported how an architect failed to perform sufficient due diligence in crafting green building specifications for a particular project and specified what turned out to be a patented solar shading system. After the project was complete, the patent holder approached the owner and demanded a licensing fee for its use of the system. The owner pointed a finger at the architect and sought indemnification under the terms of the parties’ agreement. In my slide detailing this particular claim, I set forth the standard form intellectual property infringement indemnification provision that I use in my owner – architect agreements:

The Architect shall indemnify and hold the Owner and the Additional Insureds, as set forth in Exhibit X, harmless from any and all claims for infringement by reason of the use of any design or elements of the design of the Architect which the Architect knew, or with the exercise of due care, should have known, to be protected by one or more copyrights or patents.”

The key points to take out of this discussion are the following. First, design profesionals must use heightened scrutiny on green building projects in selecting products, materials, and building systems. Their inquiry should not only be limited to whether such items are covered by a patent, but also whether they are (1) readily available from the manufacturer and (2) provide the level of performance that the architect’s client is expecting. Second, and perhaps most critically, each contract provision in a green construction contract must be vetted with that same degree of rigor. Form contract language, as we saw in the Shaw Development case, can be a recipe for disaster. Here, although the architect may not have enjoyed sufficient bargaining power to delete this particular indemnification out of its agreement with the owner, its counsel ought to have identified such a provision and stressed the importance of reviewing any intellectual property protections as the architect selected various building systems and components.

Finally, I will be giving this same presentation, tomorrow, January 30, at the William & Mary Law School’s Environmental Law & Policy Review Symposium, It’s Not Easy Being Green. You can access additional details about the Symposium through the link below. The entire Symposium will be videotaped – details on how you might be able to access it will be forthcoming. I have also provided a link back to our post at gbNYC discussing Mr. Musica’s presentation and a link to his PowerPoint slides.

• Need For Green Counsel Increasingly Salient (gbNYC, link to Musica presentation)
• W&M ELPR Symposium - It’s Not Easy Being Green

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