1 / 17

Insurance Institute of London ASG 228 Professional Indemnity Insurance

Insurance Institute of London ASG 228 Professional Indemnity Insurance. Architects and Engineers by Derek Tadiello 12 September 2001. Status. What is an architect? Registered title What is an engineer?. Legal aspects affecting the profession. Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976

MikeCarlo
Télécharger la présentation

Insurance Institute of London ASG 228 Professional Indemnity Insurance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Insurance Institute of LondonASG 228Professional Indemnity Insurance

  2. Architects and Engineersby Derek Tadiello12 September 2001

  3. Status • What is an architect? • Registered title • What is an engineer?

  4. Legal aspects affecting the profession • Esso Petroleum v Mardon 1976 • Midland Bank v Hett Stubbs Kemp 1979 • Wessex v HLM Design 1994 • Henderson v Merrett 1995 • Holt v Payne Skillington 1995 • Baxall Securities v Sheard Walshaw 2000

  5. Claims by non-clients • St Martins v Sir Robert McAlpine 1993 • Darlingtonv Wiltshier • Panatown v Alfred McAlpine • Collateral warranties • D&F Estates v Church Commissioners 1989 • Murphy v Brentwood DC 1990 • Contracts (Rights of Third Parties Act) 1999

  6. Duties of architects and engineers • Hudson’s Building and Engineering Contracts

  7. Standard of care • Bolam v Friern Barnett 1957 • Eckersley v Binnie 1988 • Nye Saunders v Bristow 1987

  8. Warboys v Acme 1969 • Abbey Mortgagees v Key Surveyors 1996 • Samson v Metcalfe Hambleton 1997 • Victoria University, Manchester v Hugh Wilson 1984

  9. Examples of claims • Clarifying the brief: • Stormont Working Mens club v Roscoe Milne 1989 • Recommendation of builders: • Valerie Pratt v George Hill 1987 • Partridge v Morris 1995 • Representations inducing a tender: • Jarvis v Castle Wharf 2001

  10. Estimates: • Nye Saunders v Bristow 1987 • Review design: • Brickfield Properties v Newton 1971 • Herbert Leach v Norman Crossley 1984 • Tesco v Norman Hitchcox 1997 • New Islington HA v Pollard Thomas 2001

  11. Delegation: • Moresk Cleaners v Hicks 1966 • Merton v Lowe 1982 • EDAC v Moss 1984 • Knowledge of Standards & Codes: • LB Camden v Frederick MacManus 1989 • Gloucester HA v Torpy 1998 • Specification of materials: • Richard Roberts v Douglas Smith Stimson 1989

  12. Warn of further investigations: • Eames v North Herts DC 1981 • Blair v Alderney Consultants 1998 • Extensions of time: • John Barker v Portman Hotel 1996 • Estimating Areas and Profitability: • Gable House v Halpern 1995 • Duty to warn: • Chesham Properties v Bucknall Austin 1996

  13. Inspection: • East Ham v Bernard Sunley 1965 • Leicester v Trollope 1911 • Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson 1971 • Brown v Scott & Payne • Corfield v Grant • George Fischer v Multi Design Consultants 1996 • Mckenzie v Potts 1995

  14. Cover & wordings • PI mandatory -Architects Registration Board • policies are claims made + notification of circumstances • originally negligence based, but now most civil liability/legal liability wordings • Wimpey v Poole 1984 (negligent act, error or omission)

  15. Damages • Philips v Ward 1956 • Ruxley v Forsyth 1995 • Richard Roberts v Douglas Smith Stimson 1989 • LB Camden v McManus 1989 • Harbutt’s Plasticine v Wayne Tank (1970) • Prudential v McBains 2000 • Hoadley v Edwards 2001

  16. Adjudication • S.108 HG,CAR Act 1996 - a party to a construction contract has a right to refer a dispute arising under the contract to adjudication • S.104 - A construction contract includes an agreement to do architectural, design or surveying work, or to provide advice on building, engineering, interior or exterior decorating or on the laying out of landscape

  17. Quick, rough & ready decision • decision within 28 days unless a longer period agreed • although the dispute may be taken through courts, an adjudicator’s decision is binding until the court has reached a different conclusion • substantial sums may be payable pursuant to an adjudicator’s decision which cannot recovered for some time, or, in some circumstances at all

More Related