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, 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)

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)

Assume for a moment that the owner had never counterclaimed against the contractor, but that the contractor never secured the tax credits and the loss of those same credits were what ultimately drove the project into foreclosure. Would the bankruptcy trustee have the ability to assert any claims that the owner might have, including those against the contractor? Probably, so it seems to me that the potential exposure for the contractor – in the absence of language in its agreement with the owner that limited its liability for consequential damages – would be significantly higher. The damages flowing from the contractor’s failure to secure the tax credits would no longer be just the $635,000.00 in credits, but those incidental to the bankruptcy filing itself, which, arguably, would include the decrease in sales prices during the course of the automatic stay that is imposed over the property, any other sales that were lost due to the bankruptcy reorganization, and associated professional fees and other carrying costs that the owner/trustee incurred during the course of the stay.

This line of analysis should reinforce – once again – the notion that contract documents on green construction projects must account for all potential legal permutations in the event that the project does not proceed as planned. The absence of a cap on consequential damages in the contractor’s agreement with the owner in this scenario could expose it to significant liability; on the other hand, if the owner simply signed a form AIA agreement waiving its right to consequential damages, it too would be barred from attempting to recover the damages that flowed from the contractor’s breach. The next question – which I will reserve considering for a separate post on consequential damages in green construction – is whether the damages incidental to a bankruptcy filing were foreseeable by the parties and therefore recoverable in any action asserted by the owner or the bankruptcy trustee on its behalf.

Finally, just a quick word of thanks to Brian Anderson for forwarding me the link below noting the bankruptcy filing.

• Owner of Captain’s Galley Condominiums in Crisfield Bankrupt (ESH.com)
• The Anatomy of America’s First Green Building Litigation (gbNYC)

What happens if the ultimate rating that is conferred by USGBC is not Gold but Silver? It is not difficult to imagine a scenario where a tenant sues everyone in the chain- the owner, design professionals, consultants, contractors, and even lenders- if the project fails to reach the level of certification that was advertised. Significantly, we have already heard of claims where tenants sued owners when office space did not perform at the level that the tenant anticipated with respect to indoor air quality and energy efficiency. Owners must therefore be careful about elevating the expectations of potential tenants with respect to a building’s puported green features by accurately presenting a project’s sustainable elements in promotional materials. This obligation should, of course, extend to the project’s construction documents, which should clearly reflect the green design services for which the parties are contracting. Transactional risk management in advance of construction will assist stakeholders in mitigating risk and ensuring that the project achieves specific, targeted measures of green performance- whether it be under a third-party rating system or some other objective as defined by the parties in their contract.

• Marsh Report: At Least One Insurer Considering Green Endorsement (gbNYC)
• The Green Built Environment in the U.S. (Marsh, register to obtain copy)
• Need for Green Counsel Becoming Increasingly Salient (gbNYC)
• Contract Language Remains Key (gbNYC)
• Thoughts on BIM and LEED Coverage for Design Professionals (gbNYC)
• Liability Archive (gbNYC)