E&O important to LA?
July 27, 2009 2:18 PM Subscribe
When hiring a landscape architect, how useful (or not) is it to apply 'must have professional liability' as a selection criteria?
I facilitate a committee of eight, tasked with selecting a landscape architect for an HOA makeover. One is an LA, himself, remainder are laymen. Consensus of group was to apply 'must have professional liability' as criteria to move to in-person interview stage. Resulted in disqualification of one person who, to be fair, volunteered to secure the coverage. Requesting the hive mind's view:
1. There are any number of design-related professions where one would commonly expect the practitioner to carry professional liability coverage. Is landscape architecture one of them?
2. Our project is in the 'commercial/industrial' category. Mr. Disqualified's experience has been entirely in the private home (albeit for very wealthy clients) category. Would this account for his not having the coverage? What, if anything, does the distinction in experience suggest about his capabilities?
3. If he says, 'I'll get if I need to', should we say 'okay, come on in for an interview'? Or does his not having it in the first place signal something we should pay especial attention to?
Please clarify your relationship to the profession to give further context to your reply.
I facilitate a committee of eight, tasked with selecting a landscape architect for an HOA makeover. One is an LA, himself, remainder are laymen. Consensus of group was to apply 'must have professional liability' as criteria to move to in-person interview stage. Resulted in disqualification of one person who, to be fair, volunteered to secure the coverage. Requesting the hive mind's view:
1. There are any number of design-related professions where one would commonly expect the practitioner to carry professional liability coverage. Is landscape architecture one of them?
2. Our project is in the 'commercial/industrial' category. Mr. Disqualified's experience has been entirely in the private home (albeit for very wealthy clients) category. Would this account for his not having the coverage? What, if anything, does the distinction in experience suggest about his capabilities?
3. If he says, 'I'll get if I need to', should we say 'okay, come on in for an interview'? Or does his not having it in the first place signal something we should pay especial attention to?
Please clarify your relationship to the profession to give further context to your reply.
Response by poster: Confirm that we're talking about 'professional liability' coverage, and not the liability coverage that would be expected of a contractor/installer of the landscape (which won't be the LA)?
posted by John Borrowman at 4:06 PM on July 27, 2009
posted by John Borrowman at 4:06 PM on July 27, 2009
I believe in states that require licensing of Landscape Architects, an unlicensed one pays a higher insurance rate for Errors and Omissions insurance. So, that may be why he does not have it already.
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) mentions E&O insurance twice in their Code of Professional Ethics (R1.202 and R1.204), so it must not be uncommon for Landscape architects to have it.
Ready, Set, Practice: Elements of Landscape Architecture Professional Practice (a textbook for Landscape Architects) lists E&O insurance as one of the "increased costs of doing business." So again, it seems common enough.
posted by Houstonian at 5:29 PM on July 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) mentions E&O insurance twice in their Code of Professional Ethics (R1.202 and R1.204), so it must not be uncommon for Landscape architects to have it.
Ready, Set, Practice: Elements of Landscape Architecture Professional Practice (a textbook for Landscape Architects) lists E&O insurance as one of the "increased costs of doing business." So again, it seems common enough.
posted by Houstonian at 5:29 PM on July 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
1.) I would think so, because it protects them. However, if the LA has been working with a firm and are now working independently, I suppose they might not have it currently. It's not a requirement where I live.
2) Residential client work may be why he doesn't have it. Many, many non-licensed designers and gardeners build gardens for wealthy people, so there isn't a necessarily an expectation of insurance, or even contracts. There's a weird lack of distinction in the gardening world as to what constitutes "professionals"- people hire random guys with trucks and gas equipment to be their "gardener", botanists or artists to design their gardens, building contractors to put in a driveway and planted terrace, &c. So this person may not have gotten insurance because no one ever cared, and a lot of homeowners just hire whoever they want anyway.
I don't think the distinction says anything about his abilities to design a landscape plan based on all the possible variables (soil, environment, plants,people, water, access, lighting, scale, &c.) If you can articulate your needs, a landscape architect should be able to address the issues of the site.
3) Not from my point of view. I'd start by ruling out applicants based on their portfolios and references, because I'm not going to hire anyone who has lousy design skills and worthless horticultural knowledge even if they have boatloads of liability insurance.
You should be calling their references as well as evaluating their portfolio. I would be more concerned with the contractor's insurance, qualifications, specificity of bid, references- UNLESS you are doing a lot of grading, drainage, building structures, and anything involving codes and engineering. If we're just talking plants, soil, and lighting I wouldn't use lack of liability insurance to rule out a landscape architect right away.
I believe in states that require licensing of Landscape Architects, an unlicensed one pays a higher insurance rate for Errors and Omissions insurance. So, that may be why he does not have it already.
You're not a LA if you're unlicensed. You may have studied landscape architecture and have a degree, but you must be licensed to call yourself a "landscape architect". You can be a landscape designer, but technically anyone can be that- the title doesn't actually say anything about your skills or education. I'm sure there are insurance companies happy to sell anyone insurance for higher rates. This guy can't be a landscape architect without being certified.
Please clarify your relationship to the profession to give further context to your reply.
Horticulture is my profession. I have designed, installed, and maintained gardens for San Francisco clients with a design-build contractor. I am currently studying landscape architecture.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:35 PM on July 27, 2009
2) Residential client work may be why he doesn't have it. Many, many non-licensed designers and gardeners build gardens for wealthy people, so there isn't a necessarily an expectation of insurance, or even contracts. There's a weird lack of distinction in the gardening world as to what constitutes "professionals"- people hire random guys with trucks and gas equipment to be their "gardener", botanists or artists to design their gardens, building contractors to put in a driveway and planted terrace, &c. So this person may not have gotten insurance because no one ever cared, and a lot of homeowners just hire whoever they want anyway.
I don't think the distinction says anything about his abilities to design a landscape plan based on all the possible variables (soil, environment, plants,people, water, access, lighting, scale, &c.) If you can articulate your needs, a landscape architect should be able to address the issues of the site.
3) Not from my point of view. I'd start by ruling out applicants based on their portfolios and references, because I'm not going to hire anyone who has lousy design skills and worthless horticultural knowledge even if they have boatloads of liability insurance.
You should be calling their references as well as evaluating their portfolio. I would be more concerned with the contractor's insurance, qualifications, specificity of bid, references- UNLESS you are doing a lot of grading, drainage, building structures, and anything involving codes and engineering. If we're just talking plants, soil, and lighting I wouldn't use lack of liability insurance to rule out a landscape architect right away.
I believe in states that require licensing of Landscape Architects, an unlicensed one pays a higher insurance rate for Errors and Omissions insurance. So, that may be why he does not have it already.
You're not a LA if you're unlicensed. You may have studied landscape architecture and have a degree, but you must be licensed to call yourself a "landscape architect". You can be a landscape designer, but technically anyone can be that- the title doesn't actually say anything about your skills or education. I'm sure there are insurance companies happy to sell anyone insurance for higher rates. This guy can't be a landscape architect without being certified.
Please clarify your relationship to the profession to give further context to your reply.
Horticulture is my profession. I have designed, installed, and maintained gardens for San Francisco clients with a design-build contractor. I am currently studying landscape architecture.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:35 PM on July 27, 2009
It is totally reasonable for you to make it a requirement of the project.
It is also understandable that an individual who does a certain type of project almost exclusively has never bothered to get the insurance. It is certainly not a requirement of being licensed or practicing. In fact, there are some professionals who feel it primarily functions to notify the client of how much they can be sued for (not my point of view, but it is one I've heard more than once). If he is insurable, then you have the protection you are asking for.
Note that it is likely he will produce a letter saying he is qualified to get the insurance if he accepts the job. You should expect him to actually do so before you finalize the contract, but not before you make your selection. It is an overhead expense and there is no need to impose it on him if you may not select him. The lack of current insurance I don't think should be an important part of your review if he is able and willing to get insurance for the job.
The fact that he has not done this particular type of project may be a more relevant consideration, but that is left to your review. This distinction in experience doesn't make him unqualified, but you need to confirm he is ready to work with any other procedures you may set up as well. I don't find it shocking that someone working in the residential sector would not have insurance and those working in the commercial sector would.
posted by meinvt at 7:42 PM on July 27, 2009
It is also understandable that an individual who does a certain type of project almost exclusively has never bothered to get the insurance. It is certainly not a requirement of being licensed or practicing. In fact, there are some professionals who feel it primarily functions to notify the client of how much they can be sued for (not my point of view, but it is one I've heard more than once). If he is insurable, then you have the protection you are asking for.
Note that it is likely he will produce a letter saying he is qualified to get the insurance if he accepts the job. You should expect him to actually do so before you finalize the contract, but not before you make your selection. It is an overhead expense and there is no need to impose it on him if you may not select him. The lack of current insurance I don't think should be an important part of your review if he is able and willing to get insurance for the job.
The fact that he has not done this particular type of project may be a more relevant consideration, but that is left to your review. This distinction in experience doesn't make him unqualified, but you need to confirm he is ready to work with any other procedures you may set up as well. I don't find it shocking that someone working in the residential sector would not have insurance and those working in the commercial sector would.
posted by meinvt at 7:42 PM on July 27, 2009
« Older "Umm, what do YOU think about my career?" won't... | Why does one section of one leg get warm? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
I could get into the finer details of why but it can summed it all up easily. Someone gets hurt because of a poor design, you don't want to be holding the bag for it. Landscape architecture doesn't necessarily preclude buildings, VERY HEAVY structures, stone work, etc...
Require it but allow Mr. Disqualified the opportunity to get his insurance coverage so that he can follow through with a proposal. He honestly should be carrying insurance if he has been in residential work for any length of time. You have insurance on your home, the contractors who perform work have insurance, the guys that spray tree's have insurance, etc...
He doesn't get a pass because he is an "Architect" and doesn't go to the site everyday. You sue Mr. Architect because he doesn't listen to your requirements, his insurance will be involved with it. Otherwise you might just be shit outta luck.
posted by Gravitus at 3:18 PM on July 27, 2009