Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Non-negligent E&O Limitations vs Betterment 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

rbergholz

Civil/Environmental
Jul 3, 2003
9
0
0
US
I'm trying to find either case studies or formal language that draws the line between a consulting engineers financial liability for non-negligent errors and omissions, and betterment of the project.

Simple case: Say I have a conflicting callout on the plan and profile for a specific catchbasin type. In construction, the RFI is made asking which one. I designate the correct type, which is of course the more expensive and not what was bid. The contractor submits a change order. The claim from the owner is, "you made an error, therefore you have to pay the difference in cost."

I can understand if demolition, re-construction, or contractor inflated the change-order cost, then I would be liable for that cost.

But if the structure has not been built yet, there is no reconstruction, no damages, no additional work and no markup on the change order since its a line item cost, then I should have zero financial liability. What the owner would be asking is for me to pay for betterment of the project.

I'm looking for a clear and simple defense to this claim. Any ideas? (yes I'll be talking to our E&O insurance guy again tomorrow) Thanks in advance..
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

What's the difference if the owner hires a geotech to do the geowork, or if the construction contractor subs the work to a geotech to do the work? Of course the owner pays for the investigation, no matter who actually does it.

I agree the "sole interest" could be a bit of a problem.

BigInch[worm]-born in the trenches.
 
Biginch... It's OK if made part of the work... but it is too open ended, in particular with the sole interest portion. The contract documents should be explicit about the work included...

Dik
 
I agree. The above was only a paraphrase of 1 clause of the original contracts as I remembered them. The particular clause was included in all the contracts for an 850 MM USD pipeline construction project... outside the USA. The specifics were explicitly detailed in the remainder of the contracts.

BigInch[worm]-born in the trenches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top