Project Insurance Risks

 

Does the Responsible Developer maintain adequate liability insurance on each project?

Yes, absolutely!  A major underinsured or uninsured loss can devastate your project. 

The last decade saw construction project insurance premiums for commercial general liability skyrocket to the point where many developers joked that the insurance premiums were only slightly less than the actual policy limits!  

This meteoric rise in premiums was due to extensive litigation where policy limits were routinely paid out during the 1990s and early 2000s for defect and water intrusion damage claims.  You remember, many insurers either left the WA market or would only insure lower risk builders.  As the 2007 recession deepened some developers, depending on the type of project,  opted to reduce coverage or worse, to go bare on the completed operations side.

In the last decade some other insurers have entered the WA market and the premiums for many types of liability insurance have decreased.  But are you still at risk of being underinsured? 

Yes.

Because in some egregious cases the reason the premiums are less, is that if you held that policy up to the sun, it would not block the light due to all the "holes" in it.  Those holes represent policy exclusions that drastically limit or eliminate some of the most critical coverages.  Here's an example.  One insurer from Oregon now sells reasonably priced liability policies to developers and contractors.  The policy limits appear to be the typical $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate.  So the insured feels adequately insured.  There is, however, an exclusion buried deep in the policy for water intrusion damage (a very common occurrence in the PNW) and the policy caps that coverage at only $15,000. 00.  No that is not a misprint, a $1,000,000 policy with a maximum coverage limitation of only $15,000 for water damage.  Imagine that exclusion in the event of an extensive roof leak or other water related damage.

Another example is a well known insurer from Nebraska that decided to place certain requirements on policy holders in order to obtain the benefit of coverage (yes more than just paying the premium).  The policy requirements demand that if you are the developer or general contractor, that you will only get the benefit of your policy coverage and limits if you have all of your subcontractors and suppliers name you as additional insureds and must have them sign indemnity agreements.  While that is always a good practice, if  you have 20 trades on a job or turnover during the work, it can be tough to be named by all the trades and have all of them sign indemnity agreements.  If, however, you fail to obtain all the required additional insured endorsements and agreements, you may find you have limited coverage or none at all.

So what is the Responsible Developer supposed to do?  A great start is to work with a reliable insurance broker and get sample policies with the current exclusions and actually read them all. 

Even better is to work with a lawyer that knows insurance coverage and related litigation and have them advise you before place the policy.  Between the two, you should be able to discern whether you are really adequately insured or if you are unnecessarily exposing yourself and your project to significant underinsured or uninsured risks.

Lastly, even if you are the consummate do-it-yourselfer, please, read the policy....before you buy it and put it in the file drawer. 

 

Wind Wars Episode I-PNW Energy Companies v. BPA

Does the Responsible Developer avoid conflicts in Renewable Energy Production that could lead to litigation?  Apparently not all of the time.

At the end of last month we reported the Bonneville Power Administration's ("BPA") decisions to allow more water to be spilled over dams and to shut down many wind turbines.  We speculated that the decision would create conflicts that could lead to litigation.  And so it has, the Wind Wars have begun.

A coalition of five PNW energy companies (Iberdrola Renewables, PacifiCorp, NextEra Energy Resources, Horizon Wind Energy and Invenergy have filed a one hundred and thirteen page complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC").  The coalition claims to have invested $6 billion in renewable energy generation in the region.  The coalition is howling mad and alleges that BPA violated the Federal Power Act by using its control of the region's power grid to breach its contracts and seize transmission rights. 

The American Wind Energy Association ("AWEA") also filed a motion to intervene with comments in support of the coalition, decrying BPA's alleged acts as discriminatory in favor of its own interests, and further voicing its support for the energy companies' allegations.  

"BPA is using its control of the region's transmission system and exploiting unusually high water levels to break contracts," said Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at the AWEA and former FERC policy advisor. "Contracts cannot be broken for wind or anything else.  BPA, a government-owned monopoly, cannot play by different rules and shred contracts with private companies. FERC can rise above the politics and adjudicate based on facts and the law".

According to BPA's newsroom it was aghast that the complaint had been filed.  BPA spokesman Mike Hansen stated "We are disappointed that this filing has proceeded as we are participating in mediation sponsored by FERC that we believe is worthy of effort". 

BPA also argues the complaint is overblown because the BPA already has authority to limit wind generation, particularly during periods of overgeneration. “We have the legal authority to implement the Environmental Redispatch policy and, in addition to that, we believe our transmission contracts also give us the legal authority to limit generation,” stated Hansen.

BPA's position is unlikely to keep it out of the courts or away from an expensive and protracted  battle at FERC.  Other Northwest energy companies are expected to blast these and other BPA policies in the Ninth District Circuit Court of Appeals by alleging BPA actions are in violation of the Northwest Power Act.  Individual companies and utilities may also file actions to recover losses from BPA for its actions this spring in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

 

Stay tuned, this is a major, reoccurring conflict with very high stakes.  Anticipate it may take a long time for the wind wars to blow over. 

 

Proving Green=Energy Savings

 

Does the Responsible Developer need to track Green energy savings?

Absolutely, whether voluntary or mandatory, it is your best interest as the Responsible Developer because it means you are saving money or at least offsetting the cost of the money you spent on all that Green energy saving technology.  If can also show you that your building performs better which makes it more attractive to tenants and prospective buyers!

If tracking energy use is voluntary, you still need to do it as part of good risk management.  You need to at least track performance before any applicable warranties have ran, because monitoring will tell you if actual performance is within the guarantees, warranties or performance specifications for your building.  If before that time energy use and cost are unexpectedly high it may indicate you have a problem that needs to be immediately investigated.  While there is probably a contract requirement for you to timely notify the applicable design professionals and contractors, it is always a good idea to consider hiring a unbiased and objective energy use audit consultant (link is a sample reference only there are many available locally).  This becomes critical when, in the face of well documented sub-par energy performance, your project team is doggedly representing that all is as it should be.

If tracking energy use is mandatory (yes many state and federal authorities are requiring mandatory production of records showing energy consumption) then you have no choice. 

Locally, as of today, May 12, the City of Seattle's Department of Planning and Development is requiring that 800 commercial property owners of non-residential buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. must start tracking energy use and must report on October 3, 2011.  Then, for both non-residential and and multifamily residential buildings over 10,000 sq. ft., annual reporting begins on April 1, 2012 (no not a belated April Fools joke). 

These effected property owners must employ use of the EPA's Energy Star Portfolio Manager that is used to set "energy use benchmarks".  This energy information must then be provided to the parties in real estate transactions (buyers, tenants and lenders).

So with this information becoming generally available to players in the RE market,  this new "energy bench marking" is expected to be used by local RE agents to help owners see where they stand in the market and how competitive their building(s) are regarding energy use.  Kidder Mathews was already working with its clients to do this voluntarily and has not had much push back from owners.

So again, whether mandatory or not, spending money on tracking the energy performance of your buildings means businesses and consumers that value green built will be willing to pay more, if you have empirical proof of performance.     

A Big Conference... and a Big Lawsuit

USGBC's annual Greenbuild International Conference and Expo attracted more than 28,000 attendees at its show in November in Chicago.  Meanwhile, an outspoken building energy consultant in New York filed a class action lawsuit against USGBC and its founders, claiming USGBC is misleading builders and consumers about the energy performance of LEED certified buildings.

Retired General Colin Powell was the keynote speaker for Greenbuild, speaking on the necessity for passion and optimism in effective leadership.  Other speakers included USGBC President, CEO, and founding chair Rick Federizzi, Chicago's mayor, Richard M. Daley, and other government and industry speakers.  The conference showcased hundreds of new eco-friendly products and options, from a "smog eating" roofing tile manufactured by MonierLifetile LLC to a Caroma dual flush toilet that includes a hand basin on its top, allowing users to wash their hands in clean water that is immediately recycled to the toilet tank below for the next flush.

USGBC also announced two new green building rating systems, LEED for Healthcare and LEED for retail, along with the LEED Volume Program, designed to meet the certification needs of high-volume property developers, in anticipation of more robust building times ahead.  For more information, visit www.usgbc.org/leed.

Meanwhile, on October 8, 2010, Henry Gifford of Gifford Fuel Saving, Inc., filed a class action lawsuit against USGBC in federal court in New York City.  The lawsuit alleges that USGBC committed fraud and false advertising when it claimed LEED certified buildings save more energy than non-certified buildings.  The suit relies heavily on a study commissioned by USBGC and performed by the New Buildings Institute in March, 2008.  Based on this study, USGBC announced in April, 2008, that LEED certifed buildings were 25-30% more energy efficient than non-LEED buildings.  The suit claims the study and press release are misleading and points to Gifford's critique of the study, published in 2008, that concludes LEED buildings are, on average, 29 % less efficient.   USGBC's answer is due to be filed by December 28.  Commentators have questioned the validity of the lawsuit, although, as previously pointed out in this blog, USGBC has been responding to criticisms that its rating system does not measure actual energy performance of a particular building.

More to come on both fronts, stay tuned!

Green Building Gains and Risk Management Improvements

Environmental Leader reports that in five years the total US green building market value is projected to increase from $71.1 billion to $173.5 billion. This represents a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 19.5%. The commercial green building segment of this market is expected to increase from $35.6 billion to $81.8 billion. According to the report, this surge in green building has the potential to create 2.5 million American jobs, about a 30% increase in jobs within the construction industry.

This remarkable surge of green building activity will be accompanied by a surge in the risks associated with green building. As discussed in some of our prior blogs, the key to managing these risks is to contract carefully and make sure that expectations are defined and responsibilities for those expectations are specifically assigned to the parties in the contract documents. To address some of these risks, the insurance industry offers some niche coverage for green building projects. For example, Chartis Insurance offers "green reputation coverage", designed to address the threat or reality of adverse publicity when a building fails to meet green industry standards. Coverage includes access to crisis consultants and a range of other services to mitigate adverse publicity. Chartis also offers "green indoor environment coverage", providing coverage for bodily injury claims resulting from specialized equipment and products used to improve air and water quality in green buildings.

Similarly, Fireman's Fund recently began offering a five percent discount to policyholders with Energy Star buildings, and offers "green financial incentive coverage" for policyholders that paid for green improvements to their property with help from a tax incentive or financial grant and then suffered a loss when the building did not achieve the targeted rating and the policyholder is obligated to return the benefit received. These coverages are described in more detail in an article from Rueters.

Careful contracting and thoughtful insurance coverage will help reduce the risks and enhance the benefits of green building for all contracting parties and end users as green building in public and private construction continues its exponential growth.

 

Greening the Big Apple... Or Not

Two outer limits of the sustainability tides are playing out in New York City. One of the Big Apple’s prized icons, the Empire State Building, is in the middle of an innovative, cutting edge building retrofit that is designed to reduce energy consumption by 38% and to generate $4.4 million annual energy cost savings. Over by the Hudson River, unit owners of a $4.2 million condo unit are suing the developers, architects, engineers, and city building authority because their unit is not green enough. The two limits offer guidance for all developers involved in sustainable building.

Photo via Flickr.com (bobcatnorth)Anthony Malkin, owner of the Empire State Building (ESB), has made a commitment not only to retrofit one of America’s best known buildings into one of the most energy efficient buildings in the Big Apple, but also to do it in a transparent manner that will provide a beacon to other property owners to follow with their own green retrofit projects. Beginning in early 2008, Malkin partnered with 5 entities to develop a proposal for the retrofit: The Clinton Climate Initiative, Jones Lang LaSalle, Rocky Mountain Institute, and Johnson Controls. The team’s charter describes their mission: 

The retrofit of the ESB into a Class A pre-war trophy building will transform the global real estate industry by transparently demonstrating how to create a competitive advantage for building owners and tenants through profitably greening existing buildings.

After assembling the data and design to do this, the retrofit project is scheduled to be completed by 2013, with 55% of the energy savings available by December 31, 2010.  See more of the details in a project white paper and hear Malkin talk about the unique aspects of the project.

Key to the project is a unique contract between ESB and Johnson Controls, called an energy services performance contract, whereby Johnson Controls guarantees certain annual energy savings, or pays the difference, for a period of 15 years. Contracts that specify the responsibilities—and consequences of non compliance---are essential to a well planned sustainable project.

Meanwhile, owners of a luxury condominium at The Riverhouse One Rockefeller Plaza are suing the developers (and its architects and engineers) for $1.5 million in damages because they say the building is not green enough. Among other claims, the owners allege their unit’s air-infiltration system and heating are not up to the green standards they were promised, having conducted an energy audit that showed cold air infiltration through doors, windows, and exterior walls that was more than 49% higher than LEED standards. See more details in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

The Riverhouse lawsuit is just the beginning as owners and tenants, promised sustainable buildings and commensurate energy savings, file suit when the actual building does not perform as promised. Courts will eventually have to determine what are green building best practices and assign liability among the potential defendants. Once again, development contracts that specify green building responsibilties and consequences of non-performance are essential to successful sustainable construction or conversion work.

Can homebuying consumers bear the cost of new green and energy codes during recession?

Some of our prior posts included information about new energy efficient “Net Zero” Homes and California’s landmark decision to mandate a Green Building Code (CALGREEN). However, there may be unintended financial consequences when code officials mandate green and more energy efficient homes. 

Concern about these consequences caused the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) to file a lawsuit on behalf of its members.  The complaint alleges that the end result of new provisions in the Washington State Energy Code that go into effect in July 2010 will be that fewer homes will be built and sold because consumers cannot afford to buy the homes that would be built under the new code requirements.  BIAW alleges that the cost to comply with these code requirements would increase the cost of an average home by $4,000-$15,000.  Probably a tough sell to first time buyers in recession. 

According to the Washington State Building Code Counsel (SBCC) in the long run these code requirements will result in lower energy costs over the life of the homes.  However that may be small consolation to buyers who cannot afford these energy efficient and code compliant homes in the first place.

This possible energy and code conflict would not be the first of its kind in Washington.  In the 1990s building and energy codes mandated tighter insulated buildings that featured exterior fire resistive gypsum sheathing.  The problem was that in wet climates like western Washington, when rain penetrated behind cladding, the result was mold, a loss of structural capacity and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage.  This conflict also dramatically increased the cost of insurance on residential construction projects and hence increased the cost of homes.

So apparently major changes in building and energy code requirements may need to be tested by the courts and mother nature before code officials, builders and consumers all realize the intended benefits.

Green Buildings and Murphy's Law

Growing up with my engineer father introduced me at an early age to Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.” Although initially confined to the challenges of raising a large family and home repairs to an older home, my experience as a lawyer has confirmed the validity of the law. Green building is no exception, and as the world wide push to more and more sustainable lifestyles and buildings propels the growth of green building, many new things can and most assuredly will go wrong.

Indeed, the emerging nature of green design and construction will likely increase the liability of design and construction professionals for two major reasons. First, green building lacks universally accepted standards for exactly what qualifies as green or sustainable construction. Second, there is the risk of heightened (and unrealistic) expectations on the part of the end users, to whom green building might mean “defect free” or less maintenance.

For now, the best way to prepare for what to do when things inevitably go wrong is to understand the basic concepts in green building systems to better anticipate issues that may arise in drafting agreements and conducting construction and design activities. We recently presented an article that looks at the background of green building systems and examines ways to deal with new risks in both public and private construction.

In anticipation of both legislative and industry wide demand for green building, the American Institute of Architects modified its B101-2007 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect to provide some guidance on green building:

§ 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. The Architect shall reach an understanding with the Owner regarding the requirements of the Project.

However, this provision contains very little responsibility and anticipates that any “extensive environmentally responsible design” or “LEED Certification” services will only be provided as Additional and not Basic services (meaning more money). So, if such services are needed, care should be taken to draft contract clauses requiring the services and specifying whether the services will be paid for as a part of, or in addition to, the original compensation to the Architect.