Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
employed engineer is sued by the client 1
- Thread starter liming37
- Start date
SWComposites
Aerospace
Of course it is. Lawyers can sue anyone for anything. Whether they win or not is the question.
Success will depend on the employee/employer agreement or contract. If the employer had agreed to indemnify the employee and the employee was acting in good faith, then there would be a hard time of it as the insurance company would essentially end up suing their own insured. Yikes.
If there was no such agreement or if the employee was grossly negligent (capable of doing the work but decided not to bother and ignored several important things) or, worse yet, acting with malfeasance and intentionally trying to cause harm, then I'd say the employer's insurance might have a case against the engineer.
For what it's worth, this was why I refused to seal anything after I got my license. My employer at the time refused to extend any sort of formal legal/insurance protection and instead wanted me to rely on 'the way it's normally done' and safety in the fact that 'they'll just come after the firm anyway'. A 2 minute conversation with my lawyer debunked those ideas.
If there was no such agreement or if the employee was grossly negligent (capable of doing the work but decided not to bother and ignored several important things) or, worse yet, acting with malfeasance and intentionally trying to cause harm, then I'd say the employer's insurance might have a case against the engineer.
For what it's worth, this was why I refused to seal anything after I got my license. My employer at the time refused to extend any sort of formal legal/insurance protection and instead wanted me to rely on 'the way it's normally done' and safety in the fact that 'they'll just come after the firm anyway'. A 2 minute conversation with my lawyer debunked those ideas.
JoelTXCive
Civil/Environmental
I would think the answer is yes, but unless the employee exercised extreme negligence, then I'm not sure it would work.
Also it probably depends on the title of the engineer. For example, is this just a mid-level PE; or is this an officer of the company?
What would the employer's (or insurance company's) argument be....."you're a terrible person and did bad things, BUT we allowed you to continue working here and we had no QAQC procedure to catch your bad acts?"
It is also possible that the employer has already indemnified the employee in the employment agreement.
Also it probably depends on the title of the engineer. For example, is this just a mid-level PE; or is this an officer of the company?
What would the employer's (or insurance company's) argument be....."you're a terrible person and did bad things, BUT we allowed you to continue working here and we had no QAQC procedure to catch your bad acts?"
It is also possible that the employer has already indemnified the employee in the employment agreement.
-
1
- #6
Yes, and in extreme cases, the employer can sue the employee. In the case of negligence, it's pretty much wide open. People cannot be 'held harmless'.
-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates
-Dik
This seems unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. If not highly unlikely and unusual.
I also think acts while employed would be under the company and (in the U.S.) there's an implicit indemnification of an employee (and a company's duty to defend them) in the lawful performance of their duties (mind, the insurance company's lawyer is there for the company, you aren't exactly their client in that fashion), you can NAME an employee in a lawsuit, (you can name anybody....) but they personally would likely be allowed out, unless, say, they did special inspections very badly as a private individual "moonlighting" out from under the company, and that's part of the claimed damaged(?), or if they were a third party administrator (i.e. a "independent" adjuster). I have seen a lot of litigation (well, more than the typical guy, I guess, and about none are negligence actions, the "you did it wrong" stuff I've seen involved it being "unconstructible" or delay claims for whatever reason) and it's unusual for the employee to be named. It's like an insurance adjuster being personally sued :in addition: to the insurance company, I've only seen that once out of well, beyond dozens of actions.
This is my impression of things, I'm NOT an attorney. Canada I really don't know anyway, I don't practice (practise?) in Canada.
I also think acts while employed would be under the company and (in the U.S.) there's an implicit indemnification of an employee (and a company's duty to defend them) in the lawful performance of their duties (mind, the insurance company's lawyer is there for the company, you aren't exactly their client in that fashion), you can NAME an employee in a lawsuit, (you can name anybody....) but they personally would likely be allowed out, unless, say, they did special inspections very badly as a private individual "moonlighting" out from under the company, and that's part of the claimed damaged(?), or if they were a third party administrator (i.e. a "independent" adjuster). I have seen a lot of litigation (well, more than the typical guy, I guess, and about none are negligence actions, the "you did it wrong" stuff I've seen involved it being "unconstructible" or delay claims for whatever reason) and it's unusual for the employee to be named. It's like an insurance adjuster being personally sued :in addition: to the insurance company, I've only seen that once out of well, beyond dozens of actions.
This is my impression of things, I'm NOT an attorney. Canada I really don't know anyway, I don't practice (practise?) in Canada.
JoshPlumSE
Structural
Brad805 said:
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. My father was an expert witness for years in lawsuits. He'd testify on economic matters. Calculation of damages and such. One of the things he used to say is that "lawsuits are always about money, and he who has money is likely to draw the most attention of any lawyers involved".
Heck, I know some engineers who refuse to carry E&O insurance because they believe that they won't get targeted in any frivolous lawsuits if they don't have it. I've seen cases where people sue the engineer because their stucco cracked. Not big gaping crack, just minor (almost hairline) cracks that the homeowner noticed and is upset about. Seriously? If you've got E&O insurance, they will often settle such miscellaneous crap. But, when a lawyer sees that you don't and know that you're willing to go to court to fight it, they look for someone else to sue (the builder, the geotech or anyone that can actually pay). The lawyer knows the engineer doesn't have much money of his own and a jury is unlikely to want to bankrupt him for something so frivolous.
- Thread starter
- #10
JedClampett
Structural
Never heard of such a thing. My questions would be if I was the employee's lawyer:
[ul]
[li]If employee was so bad, why did you hire them?[/li]
[li]Was the offending act reviewed? (Note that there's no right answer, like "when did you stop beating your wife")[/li]
[li]Has this employee been disciplined for poor work?[/li]
[/ul]
[ul]
[li]If employee was so bad, why did you hire them?[/li]
[li]Was the offending act reviewed? (Note that there's no right answer, like "when did you stop beating your wife")[/li]
[li]Has this employee been disciplined for poor work?[/li]
[/ul]
Never heard of it. (It sort of defeats the purpose of insurance.) I've heard of the EOR being named a co-defendant in a lawsuit (along with his company). But the plaintiff in those cases were the people who were injured in whatever went wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question