Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse IRMI OnlineIRMI Online
Expand How To Use IRMI OnlineHow To Use IRMI Online
My Paid Publications
Expand What's NewWhat's New
Expand DashboardsDashboards
Expand Commercial Liability InformationCommercial Liability Information
Expand Commercial Property InformationCommercial Property Information
Expand Commercial Auto InformationCommercial Auto Information
Expand D&O, PL, E&O, EPLI InformationD&O, PL, E&O, EPLI Information
Expand Workers Compensation InformationWorkers Compensation Information
Classifications and Cross-References
Expand Risk Mgt. and Multiline InformationRisk Mgt. and Multiline Information
Expand Risk Finance InformationRisk Finance Information
Collapse Construction InformationConstruction Information
Expand Contractor's Guide to OCIPsContractor's Guide to OCIPs
Expand Construction Risk Conference HandoutsConstruction Risk Conference Handouts
Collapse Free Construction CommentaryFree Construction Commentary
Expand Builders Risk InsuranceBuilders Risk Insurance
Expand Construction Defect CoverageConstruction Defect Coverage
Expand Construction Liability InsuranceConstruction Liability Insurance
Expand Construction Quality InsuranceConstruction Quality Insurance
Expand Construction SafetyConstruction Safety
Collapse Design LiabilityDesign Liability
Owners Protective Professional—A Market Update (June 2014)
Contractors Professional Liability--A Market Update (May 2014)
Public-Private Partnerships (August 2013)
Professional Liability Insurance Requirements for Design-Build Projects (June 2013)
Contractor Obligated To Care for Designer (February 2013)
Contractor's Professional Liability and the CGL (October 2012)
Calculating Damages Can Deflate a Design Liability Claim (August 2012)
Sustainable Construction Professional Liability Risks (May 2012)
Mitigation of Damages Coverage (September 2011)
Illinois Supreme Court Rejects an Expert Witness's Expanded Duty of Care (May 2011)
Failing To Define the Standard of Care (January 2011)
Take Advantage of Project Excess Endorsements (January 2011)
Project Professional Liability Insurance for Construction Firms (November 2009)
Understanding Contractor's Protective Insurance (June 2009)
The 2007 AIA Document: Changes in Formal Dispute Resolution (May 2009)
Design Professional's Attention to Contract Clauses Can Pay Dividends (September 2008)
Contractors Professional Liability Market Update (June 2008)
Owners Protective Professional Indemnity Insurance (March 2008)
Protection of Architectural Plans (September 2007)
Contractors Professional Liability Update (August 2007)
Project Professional Liability Insurance Alternatives (June 2007)
Remote Relations and Legal Duties of Design Professionals (September 2006)
Trying To Do the Right Thing: Self-Preservation by Good Faith Decision Making (March 2006)
Are You Really Protected from Consequential Damages Exposure? (November 2005)
Higher Policy Limits for Specific Projects (October 2005)
Negligent Misrepresentation and the Economic Loss Doctrine (July 2005)
The "Bargained-for" Result: Torts, Contracts, and Statutes of Limitation (June 2005)
Unexpected Hazardous Materials—What Do You Do When the Owner Says "Keep Going"? (April 2005)
Dealing with Ambiguities in Design-Build Contracts (January 2005)
Design-Build Teammates—Who Pays Liquidated Damages First? (October 2004)
Design-Builder Not Entitled to Equitable Adjustment (September 2004)
Making the Most of Standard Indemnity Clauses (June 2004)
Standards Needed for Mold Exposure, Testing, and Remediation (April 2004)
Insurer Uses Contractual Liability Exclusion To Deny Coverage (June 2003)
The Ability To Disclaim Liability Resulting from Inspection Duties (May 2003)
Capping Damages Against Design-Builders (March 2003)
Copyright Infringement of Design Documents (November 2002)
Design Disclaimers and Implied Warranties (November 2002)
Insurance Coverage—Waivers of Subrogation (August 2002)
Stumbling Blocks to the Defense of Torts and Contractual Indemnity Claims (July 2002)
Contract Documents of the Design-Build Institute of America (May 2002)
Public Agency Exempted Project from Competitive Bidding (February 2002)
Architects and "Design and Construct" Liability under the ADA (December 2001)
Problems with Arbitration in Design-Build (November 2001)
The Design Professional's Responsibility for Job Site Injuries (September 2001)
Design-Build Engineer Held Liable for Negligence (July 2001)
Design Professional Liable for Approving Payment Absent a Bond (June 2001)
Superfund Decision May Benefit Design Builders (April 2001)
The Design Professional's Protection under the Economic Loss Doctrine (March 2001)
Professional Liability: Are Contractors Adequately Protected? (December 2000)
What Is Subrogation ... and Why Is My Contract Waiving It? (December 2000)
AIA Standard Form Is an Acceptable "Allocation of Risk" (September 2000)
Insurance for Architect- and Engineer-Led Design-Build Projects (August 2000)
Project-Specific Professional Liability: Who Really Pays for Design Errors? (May 2000)
The Design Professional's Obligation of Good Faith (May 2000)
Expand Equipment Theft PreventionEquipment Theft Prevention
Expand SuretySurety
Expand Wrap-Up ProgramsWrap-Up Programs
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
Expand Claims, Caselaw, LegalClaims, Caselaw, Legal
Expand Insurance IndustryInsurance Industry
Expand Glossary of Insurance & Risk Management TermsGlossary of Insurance & Risk Management Terms
Expand SearchSearch
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement
System Requirements
Support

Are You Really Protected from Consequential Damages Exposure?

November 2005

One of the liabilities that contractors fear most is an owner's claim for consequential damages. These damages can be substantial, and may include not only costs like lost profits and revenue, but also costs incurred by the owner to third parties as a result of the deficiencies of the contractor.

by Michael Loulakis
Wickwire Gavin, P.C.

Most contracts contain provisions whereby both parties mutually agree to waive consequential damages, since the commercial benefits of a deal do not justify the risk of having a problem with performance. However, this is not always the case, as is demonstrated by a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, Action Industries, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004).

Action Industries involved an appeal from a district court’s order enforcing an arbitration award against a design-builder of a conveyor system that failed to achieve contractually agreed on production rates. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the arbitrators did not abuse their power by awarding consequential damages to the owner, since the warranty clause did not expressly waive consequential damages caused by defective design.

Action Industries, Inc., and Engineered Handling Systems, Inc. (EHS), entered a contract whereby EHS was to design, build, and install a conveyor system for Action’s furniture manufacturing and distribution facility in Mississippi. This contract specified that the conveyor would accommodate a production rate of 11 units per minute. The finished conveyor ultimately only achieved 47 percent of this specified rate, causing Action to incur substantial labor and maintenance costs.

Action filed an arbitration demand alleging that EHS was liable for negligent design and for breaches of express and implied warranties. When the arbitration panel awarded Action over $1 million, Action quickly filed a lawsuit in Mississippi state court to confirm the arbitration award. A few days later, EHS sued Action in a Tennessee state court to vacate the arbitration award. Both lawsuits were eventually removed to federal court. The Mississippi federal court confirmed the arbitration award and EHS appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that the arbitrators exceeded their authority by awarding consequential damages, since the warranty clause in the contract waived consequential damages.

The Fifth Circuit rejected this argument, concluding that EHS was reading the limitation of consequential damages far too narrowly:

  • The warranty provision merely provided that "in no event shall [EHS] be liable for any compensatory or consequential damage in connection with the installation, use or failure of the equipment." The consequential damages award did not derive from the installation, use or failure of the conveyor, but rather from its defective design. The warranty clause is notably silent whether such damages are prohibited.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the conveyor’s failure to accommodate the required production rate could be attributed to faulty design, and that the arbitrators had the ability to award damages on this basis. The court also noted that, at most, "the warranty provision creates an ambiguity as to whether the panel may award consequential damages for design defects." EHS drafted the contract, and ambiguous contract language is to be construed against the party who drafted the language.

  • If EHS had actually intended to prohibit all consequential damages, it should have simply drafted a blanket prohibition of such damages. Instead, EHS drafted a warranty provision which prohibited only certain types of consequential damages.

As a result, the award against EHS was confirmed.

Action Industries contains a classic performance specification: produce X number of widgets in Y number of hours. The failure of EHS (the design-builder) to meet this production left it exposed to a breach of contract claim in the arbitration. While this type of exposure is inherent in a design-build relationship, liability for consequential damages is not. EHS did a poor job of negotiating the warranty clause, and never should have allowed the consequential damages waiver to be as muddled as it was. It would not have been difficult to express clearly that there was a full waiver of consequential damages for anything arising out of or related to the contract.

Readers should note that Action Industries gives us a somewhat unique opportunity to evaluate how arbitrators think. Action presented two alternative claims to the panel, one of which sought the cost of a properly designed conveyor (approximately $5.5 million), with the other seeking a refund of the purchase price paid to EHS for the improperly designed conveyor (approximately $1.3 million). The award in favor of Action was based precisely on the second theory, after giving EHS credit for some extra work. EHS actually dodged the bullet, since the arbitration panel could have justified an award for the properly designed conveyor, as well as other costs claimed by Action for maintaining and operating the defective conveyor (which were almost $3 million). As a side note, ask yourself why the refund of money was considered a consequential damage—it certainly seemed like a direct cost for a design-build "wrap" that went bad.


Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Advertisements
    
 
© 2000-2014 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.