The most common first-line approach architects and engineers use to this end has been to change the “approval” statements and to add strained, exculpatory language to their shop drawing approval stamps:
1. The word “approved” has been totally eliminated from their vocabulary. Words like “No Exceptions Taken,” “Examined,” “Reviewed,” and (my favorite) “Not Rejected” are used in attempts to somehow reduce their liability.
2. Paragraphs describing what they are and are not doing make the stamp larger than the paper that was stamped.
In most instances, these efforts have produced no beneficial effects, and in many instances, they have had decidedly adverse effects:
1. Courts have clarified that the use of words other than “approved” does not bar a liability. They acknowledge that:
a. Only the person with the “big picture” could carry the responsibility for design safety and integrity.
b. The contractor relies on the architect’s written authorization to proceed with the work at all. Whatever the actual word may be, it is considered as an express statement authorizing the work to proceed as described in the submittal. It cannot be construed to mean “it’s OK to fabricate and install the work this way for now, but I may reject it later.”
2. The inclusion of detailed language may actually be an express statement by the designer that he or she is actually not performing the reviews or taking the action that is required by the owner/architect agreement, the owner contractor agreement, or even the general conditions of the contract. The designer may therefore actually be setting himself or herself up for a case of gross negligence.
Post your comment on this topic.