Introduction
Design firms thrive on creativity, technical excellence, and trust. But even the most diligent professionals can find themselves navigating claims, disputes, or lawsuits. For many, the courtroom becomes a crash course in contract interpretation, documentation habits, and the true meaning of “standard of care.”
This article analyzes real-world claims faced by architecture, engineering, and surveying (AES) firms, breaking down what went wrong, how the claims were resolved, and the practical lessons you can apply to avoid similar risks. These case studies are representative of actual disputes from insurance claim data, legal proceedings, and industry leading risk managers (like Promark :) ).
Claim #1: Misunderstood Scope
Project Type: Municipal streetscape
Discipline: Civil engineering firm
Allegation: Failure to include ADA-compliant design at an intersection allegedly within project scope.
In this case, a civil engineering firm was contracted by a small municipality to revitalize a key downtown corridor, which included road resurfacing, sidewalk upgrades, drainage, and ADA improvements across a series of intersections. The contract's scope of work described the project generally as a 'downtown corridor improvement,' and did not specifically list each intersection to be addressed.
During construction, the city received an accessibility complaint regarding one intersection that had not been modified. Believing this intersection was within the consultant’s responsibility, the city alleged that the engineer had failed to meet the design standard of care and had exposed the city to ADA liability.
The engineer pointed to earlier correspondence suggesting that the intersection was excluded, citing limited funding and prioritization discussed during project kickoff. However, internal project emails also contained references to 'eventually updating' the location, which the city used to assert inclusion. No formal addendum or revised scope was ever executed.
The city demanded $150,000 in remediation costs. After mediation, the engineer’s insurance carrier agreed to settle the matter for $75,000 in damages, with $45,000 in legal defense costs. The insurer cited the ambiguity of the scope and the failure to document scope exclusions as key weaknesses.
Lesson Learned: Verbal agreements and internal assumptions don’t protect against liability. Always document which areas or features are excluded from scope—and confirm those exclusions with the client in writing.
Pro Tip: Use a scope matrix or checklist that includes columns for 'included,' 'excluded,' and 'by others.' Reference it in your contract exhibits and update it with every change order.
Claim #2: The Contractor’s “Design Assist” Backfire
Project Type: Commercial mixed-use development
Discipline: Structural engineer
Allegation: Delays and cost overruns due to inadequate coordination during shop drawing review.
A structural engineering firm was brought on board for a high-end mixed-use development in an urban setting. The project’s aggressive timeline prompted the general contractor to initiate early coordination meetings with trade partners and design consultants. The engineer was encouraged to 'help' expedite the steel pricing process by providing early sketches, intended to assist the steel fabricator during procurement.
Though the engineer labeled the drawings as 'Preliminary – Not for Construction,' the contractor shared them with the fabricator without proper caveats. When the formal shop drawings came in, they showed inconsistencies from the structural intent, which required multiple revisions. This led to weeks of delays in fabrication and field construction.
The contractor filed a claim seeking over $500,000 in delay damages, alleging that the engineer’s ambiguous early direction and delayed review created the bottleneck. The engineer’s defense was complicated by meeting minutes that described the firm’s early sketches as 'agreed upon basis for steel detailing.' Although the documents were not contract documents, they were perceived as directive.
After discovery and deposition, the insured’s legal team negotiated a settlement of $180,000 to resolve the claim, totaling over $240,000 after expenses. No negligence was formally established, but the cost and time spent defending the firm highlighted how unclear collaboration boundaries can lead to major exposure.
Lesson Learned: Design assist collaboration must be clearly outlined. Always document your role, clarify that preliminary inputs are conceptual only, and do not allow informal work to substitute for contractual deliverables.
Recommended Contract Language:
“Consultant’s participation in coordination or design assist meetings shall not constitute approval or responsibility for shop drawing development. All reviews are for general design intent only and shall not include means, methods, or fabrication responsibility.”
Claim #3: Overpromised Energy Savings
Project Type: K-12 School Renovation
Discipline: Architect and MEP subconsultant
Allegation: Failure to meet energy savings targets mentioned in proposal and contract.
An architecture firm partnered with an MEP consultant on a publicly funded school modernization project. The RFP emphasized sustainability goals, and the winning proposal promised a '30% energy use reduction' based on projected improvements to HVAC systems, daylighting, and building envelope upgrades. While the design team included disclaimers in their proposal noting that results were based on modeled assumptions, the final client agreement referenced the same target percentage without qualifying language.
Two years after occupancy, the school board claimed the promised performance had not materialized. Utility costs were only slightly improved from pre-renovation levels, and they alleged breach of contract and professional negligence. The owner further claimed that improper duct design and inefficient lighting contributed to increased cooling loads.
Although the design team had documented extensive coordination and had met code and LEED criteria, the lack of contractual clarification around energy performance expectations created a weak defense. A forensic energy audit by the claimant’s expert introduced conflicting results, and the insurer eventually negotiated a $300,000 settlement, split between the architect and MEP subconsultant.
Lesson Learned: Never guarantee performance outcomes. Model results are tools, not warranties. Ensure all references to energy savings are clearly caveated, and limit responsibility to the standard of care.
Claim #4: Owner Directed Changes
Project Type: Healthcare Facility Expansion
Discipline: Architect
Allegation: Coordination errors and cost overruns due to owner-led design changes.
In a fast-track expansion project for a regional healthcare facility, the owner insisted on an accelerated design timeline and maintained a very active role in the process. Throughout the design and early construction phases, the owner frequently provided verbal direction and emailed annotated PDFs with layout changes, sometimes multiple times per week. The architect attempted to accommodate these changes, but not all were captured in formal revisions or documentation.
Once construction began, the general contractor relied on issued-for-construction drawings that did not reflect all of the owner's evolving inputs. Conflicts emerged between field conditions and final drawings, resulting in multiple RFIs, costly change orders, and construction delays. The owner filed a claim against the architect for $850,000, citing errors in design coordination and a failure to reflect the approved layout changes.
The architect’s defense hinged on the informal nature of the changes and the lack of clear client directives. But emails revealed that the architect had acknowledged and agreed to implement several of them without issuing formal ASIs or updates. While the owner’s role contributed to the confusion, the architect’s failure to enforce proper change order and revision procedures undermined the defense.
The case settled for $275,000, and the architect’s insurer emphasized the need for documented communication protocols in fast-track or collaborative design environments.
Lesson Learned: Design direction, even from the client, must be documented, tracked, and formally incorporated through standard processes. Never rely on informal approvals or verbal instructions in active construction settings.
Claim #5: The Helpful Engineer
Project Type: Bridge Renovation
Discipline: Structural Engineer
Allegation: Assumed liability for site safety oversight after informal involvement in safety plan review.
During a public infrastructure renovation project, a structural engineer attended a preconstruction safety meeting. At the GC’s request, the engineer briefly reviewed a scaffolding layout for equipment access and suggested minor adjustments to improve clearance near a concrete parapet. The intent was to be helpful, but the engineer’s field sketch and notes were later construed as participation in site safety planning.
After an incident involving a worker fall, the injured contractor alleged that the engineer had contributed to unsafe site conditions by reviewing and altering the scaffolding setup. Despite the contract’s clear language stating the engineer was not responsible for site safety or means and methods, the informal input created an arguable assumption of responsibility.
While the engineer was ultimately dismissed from the lawsuit after over a year of litigation, legal defense costs exceeded $100,000. The experience revealed how easy it is to blur boundaries and trigger liability through informal participation.
Lesson Learned: Stick to your contractual role. Even helpful suggestions, if outside your agreed scope, can be used to expand your liability. Say no, and say it in writing.
Conclusion: Claim Experience as a Competitive Advantage
The most damaging claims rarely arise from obvious errors. More often, they emerge from communication gaps, unclear documentation, and blurred roles. Design firms must adopt systems that reduce ambiguity and reinforce contractual boundaries. Make sure you are partnered with experienced risk managers and attorneys, and lean on your trusted advisors to help.
Every claim contains a lesson. The firms that thrive aren't necessarily the ones who avoid claims entirely, they’re the ones who learn from them, adjust their practices, and