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 Expert CommentaryFree Expert Commentary
Expand Bonding Tips and TacticsBonding Tips and Tactics
Expand ConstructionConstruction
Expand Construction Case StudiesConstruction Case Studies
Expand Construction SafetyConstruction Safety
Expand Construction Defect CoverageConstruction Defect Coverage
Expand Design-Build LiabilityDesign-Build Liability
Collapse Design Professional LiabilityDesign Professional Liability
The 2007 AIA Document: Changes in Formal Dispute Resolution (May 2009)
Design Professional’s Attention to Contract Clauses Can Pay Dividends (September 2008)
Protection of Architectural Plans (September 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)
Negligent Misrepresentation and the Economic Loss Doctrine (July 2005)
The "Bargained-for" Result: Torts, Contracts, and Statutes of Limitation (June 2005)
Making the Most of Standard Indemnity Clauses (June 2004)
The Ability To Disclaim Liability Resulting from Inspection Duties (May 2003)
Design Disclaimers and Implied Warranties (November 2002)
Stumbling Blocks to the Defense of Torts and Contractual Indemnity Claims (July 2002)
Architects and "Design and Construct" Liability under the ADA (December 2001)
The Design Professional's Responsibility for Job Site Injuries (September 2001)
Design Professional Liable for Approving Payment Absent a Bond (June 2001)
The Design Professional's Protection under the Economic Loss Doctrine (March 2001)
What Is Subrogation ... and Why Is My Contract Waiving It? (December 2000)
AIA Standard Form Is an Acceptable "Allocation of Risk" (September 2000)
The Design Professional’s Obligation of Good Faith (May 2000)
Expand Design Liability InsuranceDesign Liability Insurance
Expand Equipment Theft PreventionEquipment Theft Prevention
Expand Surety LawSurety Law
Expand Wrap-Up ProgramsWrap-Up Programs
Expand Personal Lines InformationPersonal Lines Information
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.

© 2000-2009 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.