In the second episode of a special two-part series, Executive Vice President Daniel Frazee interviews Charles Stec, J.D., accomplished attorney at Lanak & Hanna, to advise construction companies of the key aspects of indemnification agreements.
Show Notes: Subscribe to Rancho Mesa's Newsletter
Host: Daniel Frazee
Guest: Charles Stec
Editor: Megan Lockhart
Music: "Home" by JHS Pedals, “News Room News” by Spence
© Copyright 2024. Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
transcript
Daniel Frazee: Welcome back to StudioOne™ everybody. We're happy to be joined again by Charles Stec from Lanak and Hanna. We're going to change the conversation a little bit. Charles was nice enough to talk with Drew Garcia, our landscape leader about sub-contract agreements. We're going to shift into indemnification So, welcome back to the studio, Charles, and thanks again for joining us.
Charles Stec: Thanks for having me back. It's my pleasure.
DF: Okay, well, let's talk about indemnification agreements. More specifically, tell our listeners what should go through their minds when they hear that word indemnification and how it may impact them in construction?
CS: So indemnification is a big legal word that simply means a promise to pay for damages or defects that arise from your work. The bigger concern lately because of the cost of litigation is that there is a duty to defend also included with a duty to indemnify. What that really means is that if there's a claim, you end up being responsible to pay for the legal fees and costs of the person that's making that claim against you. And those costs, especially in smaller claims, can sometimes exceed the value of the actual damages at issue.
So an indemnification provision in a contract can be used to really define who is going to be responsible and to tell a subcontractor that they're responsible for damages that arise from their work. But how we write that provision can very much impact how it will be interpreted and what your actual allocation of responsibility will be.
DF: Okay. So, furthering that part of what you're talking about, can you provide us with an example how indemnification, when worded a specific way, can negatively impact, let's say, a lower tier trade that we might represent?
CS: Sure Daniel. Let’s take a drywall subcontractor as our example. If our drywall subcontractor has an indemnification provision as contract, that ultimately says that he is responsible to defend and indemnify for claims arising from or any way related to his work, then if we had a scenario where there was a water leak from the roof, from plumbing, whatever it is, and it ultimately results in the wall that's dry walled having buckling or mold, then in the event of a claim, that drywall subcontractor could arguably be responsible to indemnify and defend because our provision says in any way relating to his work.
But if we rewrite that position to just say he's only responsible for claims that arise from the negligent performance of his work. Now, in our scenario of the water leak, his duty to indemnify and to defend won't be triggered because the claim ultimately comes from a water leak, not from something wrong with how the drywall work was installed
DF: Okay, that makes sense. And I'm going to go a little off cuff with you, but I want to better understand because I think we have a lot of clients that have concern with redlining contracts, right? They're working with a preferred contractor, a really solid relationship. They don't want to disrupt that. So in your experience, when there is pushback, when there is redlining of contracts, how do most general contractors respond to that when you insert that type of wording. Does it depend on the general or is there some reasonable compromise that you've seen?
CS: So I've actually seen mostly reasonable compromise. I think everybody knows that a contract is ultimately supposed to be negotiated at arm's length. It's supposed to be the two parties are negotiating their position. What people are afraid of as a subcontractor is, "Oh, I'm not going to get the work because I'm not just accepting the contract as it is." But in that scenario, that contractor is running the risk that you're going to argue later that this was a contract of adhesion. Take it or leave it and therefore it's not enforceable. So they're typically open-minded and I have many, many a times in my recent past found myself on the phone with the general contractor's lawyer and we negotiate the few positions that are disputed in a contract. They expect it and for the most part if your requests for revisions are reasonable, they're going to get accepted.
DF: Very helpful. That's very helpful. So let's continue looking at indemnification clauses from a subcontractor's perspective. Walk us through what they may see in a typical contract and some specific examples, again, back to redlining or changing language that can minimize their exposure.
CS: So all contracts are a little different, and every one of these indemnity provisions has been written by different lawyers, so they're all a little different, but I'll give you kind of a general idea of what one normally sounds like. So my example is, “subcontractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the owner, contractor, and their agents, and any entity or person for which the contractor is responsible per the contract documents, from and against any claims, damages, or losses, including attorney's fees and costs arising from or in any way related to the subcontractor's work.”
So using my example, there's a few things that you would want to consider redlining with that provision. The first is the vague description of who you're promising to either defend or to indemnify. So in our example it said any entity or person for which the contractor is responsible. Well that's not defined and that creates a very real possibility that you could find yourself either having to provide defense fees for--or indemnity--to parties you've never even met and having to pay potentially multiple defenses. So in that case, I would strike that language in its entirety and instead make sure that each of the people that you were agreeing to identify are clearly defined. Normally that's going to be the prime contractor and the owner only. There may be some scenarios on certain jobs where you would agree to someone else, but it should be defined so you know who and what responsibility you're taking on.
DF: Okay.
CS: In our same example, another consideration is you could add language excluding liability for the owner or the general contractor's negligence. So let's talk about what that would be. For example, if the owner knows there's an unsafe condition there, there's a hole in the ground, a bad step, whatever the case may be, he doesn't tell anybody about it and leaves it there and one of your employees gets injured. Excluding that liability would make sure that the owner becomes responsible and you're not indemnifying the owner for your employee or some other person's injury that's actually coming from a condition the owner knew about and left there and didn't tell anybody.
Similarly, if another contractor on the job has done something that is so poor that it is potentially a danger either to other work or to cause injury. Let's say framing was done with a too small of a header and nobody knows that one day comes crashing down. That would be an example that if the contractor knew that their other sub had put in that bad header and didn't tell anybody that you would want to exclude that damage. So I definitely recommend adding language, excluding the gross negligence of either the owner or the contractor.
DF: Okay, all right.
CS: And a final example, it goes back to the defense costs. So in every contract for indemnity, the law implies this duty to defend. And the duty to defend arises at the time that they tender it to you, they say we've got a claim against us. And so you're now paying the legal fees of somebody else before the claims ever resolved and it's determined whether or not you did anything wrong.
Now, in our example, it said attorney’s fees and costs and you could imply that that is that duty to defend, but simply striking that wouldn't be enough, because the law actually implies the duty in to any contract of indemnity. So you have to specifically excluded it. So what you could say is I have no duty to defend a lot of times though Your contractors and owners might reject that. So what we could also consider is limiting what that duty to defend to be.
Two possibilities you could talk about is; saying that you will only agree to pay your proportionate share of the potential defense costs based on your proportionate share of the potential damages so that it's now shared amongst other subcontractors or of the contractor whoever else might be involved in the particular accident or event. The other would be to put a limitation of liability provision in where you could say our liability is either limited to what insurance proceeds pay or even to a specific dollar amounts. I've seen people say let's put it to the total amount that I was paid on the project or a set number like $100,000. Those types of provisions can help limit that defense cost that you ultimately could see picking up from an alleged accident.
DF: Okay, all right. Thanks for kind of going into that detail. Very helpful for our subs to understand some areas to be focusing on. So, if you look at indemnification clauses from a direct contractor's perspective on commercial and service contracts, what should they be watching out for and how can they redline or a change language that can minimize their exposure?
CS: Sure. So, obviously, when you're talking about these direct contractors, those on a commercial or a service agreement, their relationship is a little bit different. So they're now no longer a subcontractor lower down in the chain, but they're in a direct contract, probably with the project owner. So a lot of our discussion before on subcontractors would still apply, but there's a few other things that you might want to look at as well.
First, I've seen in a lot of direct contracts lately that in the indemnification provision, one of the parties to indemnify that owners have been adding is the design team, either the architect or the engineer. Those should be excluded because as the contractor--unless we're talking about a wholly different subject, which is design build agreements--the contractor has no control over the design. They're not able to influence how it's done, how it's built, or most of the times the design's done long before they ever get there. So to indemnify the design team doesn't make sense because it's not someone that you ever had any ability to control the quality of that work. So I think that those should be excluded, be redlined out, and also you would consider adding a phrase that says something to the effect of the contractor is not responsible for claims that arise from design defects or design errors or emissions. You don't really want to be taking on liability for a designer that you didn't have any business with and you're not in contract with.
DF: That makes sense.
CS: Another example that I've seen is that a lot of these indemnification agreements with owners are very broad. They say all claims, damages, liabilities, or losses and the problem is it doesn't clarify for what claims. Are we talking about claims from the owner or claims made to the owner? So what I've been recommending lately is that in those broad indemnity provisions, that it be revised to say for third party claims. That way the owner can't sort of hodgepodge the indemnity provision into a requirement to you to pay their defense fees to sue you. So that's a revision that we've seen come up more often than not lately.
Another that really is beneficial and it sort of goes back into the design question from a minute ago is putting in a reverse indemnity provision. So in a lot of projects, the owner provides to the contractor a set of plans, maybe some reports, some geotechnical reports, whatever the case may be, and the contractor does their work based on those reports. In a reverse indemnity provision, the owner agrees to indemnify the contractor for errors and emissions in those reports. So let's take for example, you are doing, you know, subterranean grading and there is a retaining wall to hold in that subterranean dig if the design plans didn't build a big enough set of supports and you build what's in the design plans and it fails, you shouldn't be the one responsible for that failure because it's the design, not the construction. So the reverse indemnity provision would then make the owner responsible to go to that designer for that claim rather than come to you as the contractor.
DF: Okay, all right.
CS: Finally, there are a lot of other ancillary provisions in a contract that read together with the indemnity provision can help minimize your liability. We talked about two of them with the subcontractors. That's a consequential damages waiver, those indirect costs that may come up. And the other being excluding damages for latent defects. We talked about it in the underground, an unknown type, things you wouldn't know there, like utility or box. Those types of provisions you could consider having in there and they would define when your indemnity would kick in.
Others that you could talk about adding would be a clearly defined delay provision. If your project is running late, who's responsible for that or defining what the damages would be and maybe setting a liquidated damages amount on a daily rate or a monthly rate. So at least you could control your risk because you know what that potential damage would be if it runs late.
And finally, it would be a provision limiting what recoverable damages could be, either to insurance proceeds or the maximum amount of liability, like we discussed earlier.
So the main point is that every construction business is a little different. And it makes sense to tailor your contracts to the type of trade that you're in, the type of jobs that you're doing, they could be public, they could be private, and there's different risks and allocations that come with those different types of projects. So in my belief, a little bit of foresight in working with your contracts in advance can really help control your risks in the event that something does go wrong in the future.
DF: Well, and I think Drew alluded to it too, that your process of being out in front of this and proactive really aligns with how we interact with our clients trying to mitigate risk on the front end. But so often we get feedback that sometimes crosses that line of insurance to legal, where we can comment and provide some feedback, but we don't have the expertise that you do in the background that can really help them truly negotiate these contracts or just tighten up everything that they have with respects to sub-agreements and/or indemnification.
So these bullet points are so helpful for us and our team, and I can't thank you enough for sharing this. I know this is just the tip of the iceberg too. I know what you do for many of our clients is so effective. Tell us again, if people need to connect with you, what's a good way to start the dialogue?
CS: Well, again, thank you for having me here today. It's been a pleasure. You're absolutely right. It is the tip of the iceberg. There are so many different things we could talk about. We could have gone on for hours. I really do like to tailor to a specific contractor's needs. So the best thing to do is literally to reach out. We're available by phone, consultation is free, I can be reached at my office, it's 714-451-7919, send me an email, that's ckstec@lanak-hanna.com or you can go to our website, which is Lanak-Hanna.com.
I say it all the time and I'll say it again here, I think that a little bit of upfront attention, a small amount of money you spend consulting with a lawyer. If it saves you from one lawsuit, it's worth every penny.
DF: Agreed and I think that's been consistent with the clients that have partnered with you and I think they would say the same thing. So thank you again and thanks to our listeners for joining us again in this series and we'll see you next time.
