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
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)
Contractor's Professional Liability and the CGL (March 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

The 2007 AIA Document: Changes in Formal Dispute Resolution

May 2009

For decades, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) family of documents has required that disputes be resolved by arbitration. A revision made to the AIA family of documents issued in 2007 is that the AIA has now moved to a process that puts more responsibility on the parties for selecting the dispute resolution method to be used.

by Kenneth A. Slavens
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP

The provisions in the AIA documents requiring the resolution of disputes by arbitration was frequently claimed to be a trap for the unwary. Others involved in the construction process have complained that arbitration was becoming the equivalent of litigation with the same associated expenses, resulting from discovery costs, expert fees, and attorney fees, as well as time delays before final resolution.

The Change Away from Automatic Arbitration

The AIA documents no longer require resolution by arbitration. The new A201-2007 implements a "check box system" by which the parties will be offered options as to the choice of the dispute resolution process: arbitration, litigation, or some other party-fashioned option. So, at the time of contract, the parties must choose which dispute processes they will agree to use in the event a dispute arises.

Parties and practitioners must keep in mind that, assuming the parties do not make another choice, the default dispute resolution process under A201-2007 is litigation—not arbitration. Those who have used the AIA documents for years may have become accustomed to the default selection of arbitration as the dispute resolution process. The instructions provided by the AIA make clear that the AIA does not mean to imply that by allowing litigation to become the default option, it believes litigation is the preference. The choice now must be made by the parties.

Even in the event the parties, either consciously or simply by failure to make a choice, end up "defaulted" into litigation, the parties can always agree after execution of the contract or when the dispute arises to submit their disputes to arbitration. And, if the parties choose to arbitrate their disputes, the default selection for the arbitration forum remains the American Arbitration Association. Of course, the parties may agree otherwise in their contract.

The Dispute Resolution Rules at the Time of Contract Apply

Another issue related to the dispute resolution process that the AIA tried to address by its recent changes relates to the rules applicable to the arbitration or the mediation. Previous editions of the AIA documents provided that the rules applicable to the mediation or arbitration would be the rules in place at the time the dispute resolution process is instituted. However, the AIA felt that there was an inherent problem because the rules which govern the various organizations, such as the American Arbitration Association, that administer arbitrations or mediations are known to change with the passage of time.

As a result, the AIA has now made it clear that the rules which will apply to a dispute resolution procedure are the rules in effect at the time the parties enter into the agreement as opposed to those that may be in effect at the time the dispute resolution process is instituted. The change was made so that the parties would know exactly what the dispute resolution rules will be at the time the selection of the dispute resolution process is made and administrating body is selected.

Regardless of whether the parties select litigation or arbitration, or some other means by which the dispute resolution process is delegated to some third party, AIA A201-2007 still provides that mediation is a condition precedent to arbitration, litigation, or any other dispute resolution process.


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
    
 
© 2000-2012 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.