9 Questions About: Green Building Litigation
Chris Cheatham is a construction attorney in Washington D.C. and a principal at the Law Office of Christopher W. Cheatham LLP.
Chris is a LEED Accredited Professional and has advised numerous companies regarding green building and renewable energy risks and contracts. He is also a frequent speaker for private companies, public agencies, associations and groups on the topic of green building risk management, as well as the publisher of Green Building Law Update and Blueprint Claims Blog.
d5R: When did you coin the term LEEDigation?
Chris Cheatham: I will always remember the moment. It was spring 2009, and I was tying my tie in preparation for my grandfather's funeral. My mind was wandering, probably because I didn't want to think about the task at hand. Suddenly, the word just popped in my head and I knew I had something. I bet that's not the answer you were expecting!
Here's my first blog post about the concept. It was amazing to see the word appear in ENR a few years later.
d5R: At the time, did you anticipate an increase in litigation involving USGBC's LEED program specifically, or regarding green building certifications generally?
CC: I always anticipated an increase in litigation involving the LEED program because it had such a large market share. But there is no reason the use of other certification systems could not result in the same type of liabilities and lawsuits.
d5R: Has that happened? If so, mainly in commercial development, or in residential as well?
CC: There has been very little pure LEEDigation -- i.e. disputes involving certification. It's important to remember that construction litigation takes many years to develop (usually five to 10 years). LEED Certification did not hit critical mass until 2007-2008. We are just now starting to see some examples of LEEDigation emerge and I expect this trend to continue.
d5R: I understand that green building disputes sometimes stem from a project's failure to get an anticipated level of certification. Please provide an example.
CC: I think your readers would be interested in the Bain v. Vertex Architects case. According to attorney Stephen Del Percio, a homeowner filed the lawsuit in part because the architect “failed to pursue and obtain for the Project certification from the USGBC LEED for Homes Program.” I would suggest reading Del Percio's entry regarding this lawsuit:
d5R: You have cited construction defects as another source of green building litigation. How is this risk different with "green" projects and products than with any construction projects and/or products?
CC: Frankly, construction defects on green building projects are the same as construction defects on standard projects in that the causes are the same. Construction defects occur when inappropriate materials are used, or the design or construction is not properly completed.
Green buildings do create additional risk for construction defects because new or untested green products are often incorporated and anything new or untested has a higher likelihood of failure. Other times, designers or builders may not have experience with green buildings and problems occur as a result.
d5R: In the residential realm, a lot of builders and remodelers make green claims about their projects -- e.g., energy-efficiency, sustainable materials, waste-management, etc. -- but their projects do not necessarily have green certifications. Are they thus exempt from green building litigation?
CC: Absolutely not. If anything residential builders and remodelers face more liability arising from "green" claims. Most states have enacted a Consumer Protection Act that makes it easier for homeowners to bring lawsuits if they are confused by a contractor's claims. If residential contractors make promises about energy efficiency, materials or waste management, and fail to deliver, they could face liability under these Consumer Protection Acts.
d5R: So, setting LEEDigation aside, what types of risk-management strategies should remodeling contractors and design professionals practice when it comes to green building?
CC: First, I would avoid making energy-efficiency guarantees. Contractors do not control how a home will be used. If the homeowner leaves windows open, and the home is an energy hog, what is the contractor going to do?
Second, using new or untested products can create problems down the road. For example, the Cheaspeake Bay Foundation built the first LEED Platinum building in 2000 and incorporated exposed wood products treated by a fairly new, environmentally-friendly preservative. The building is now reportedly at risk of collapsing because the wood rotted.
Finally, contractors should avoid making promises tied to rebates or incentives provided by federal, state or local governments. If the government entity fails to deliver the incentives, the contractor could be on the hook. In Washington, D.C., this scenario arose after the city reneged on solar rebates to residents.
d5R: What about contracts? I recently asked a green remodeler if his contracts have any language that speaks to the company's commitment to green principles -- e.g., only low/no-VOC paints, locally sourced where possible, etc. His response: "No green language in contracts. That is dangerous territory." He said you can explain why. Why?
CC: I am not sure I agree with the green remodeler. When a customer expects a green home, I think it's important to clearly define the customer's expectations and document these expectations through a contract.
For example, if the homeowner expects LEED for Homes certification, then the two parties should have a clear discussion about what it means to get certification and what will be required to do so. The contractor should then explain the costs tied to certification and incorporate appropriate contract language.
d5R: A growing number of jurisdictions are now implementing green building codes. What should remodeling contractors and designers (and manufacturers, for that matter) be on the lookout for locally?
CC: Back in 2000, LEED certification was the new kid on the block. Now in 2011, LEED certification has widespread market penetration throughout the country.
I equate LEED certification in 2000 with green building codes now. The International Green Construction Code (IgCC) is currently under development. Despite the fact that it is in draft form, many jurisdictions have already adopted it as a "voluntary" code.
Green building codes mostly focus on commercial developments. But I think you will see a push for green building codes to expand to the residential sector very soon.
We are starting to cover green building codes more in Green Building Law Update. These new codes will shift the standard of care for contractors and designers alike. Hopefully, our readers will understand and address these new risks going forward.
Chris Cheatham, LEED AP, is a construction attorney in Washington D.C. and a principal at the Law Office of Christopher W. Cheatham LLP as well as the publisher of Green Building Law Update. Contact him at email@example.com
7 Comments (Login to Add a Comment)
ProfServGA1287 668 days ago
Not particularly on topic, but with regard to this statement:
"Clients hire attorneys. Attorneys do not hire clients."
Plaintiffs attorneys in our area actively solicit business in new home communities, suggesting to new homeowners all the things that might be actionable, and then proposing to work on a contingency basis. Ergo, they encourage and profit from conflict. The person whom they call "client" is, in reality, someone who has merely agreed to let the attorney file a claim in return for some portion of the winnings. The relationship more closely resembles that of a pimp and hooker than a typical client who pays a service provider for work.
"I've found that if people are reasonable, then almost any disagreement can be settled, but when someone involved decides to not behave rationally or has an ulterior motive to act irrationally for financial benefit then any dispute can devolve into a grisly mess for everyone involved."
Every except the attorneys. The presence of a threat accelerates the devolution toward grisly mess, which is, of course, exactly what the attorney wants.
ProfServDC2329 668 days ago
OtherGA1003 668 days ago
I knew what the quote was, did not know the context, thanks. As to who hires who, you are correct, but I have seen almost as many delusional attorneys steer clients in their desired direction as I have seen delusional clients influence their attorneys. I've found that if people are reasonable, then almost any disagreement can be settled, but when someone involved decides to not behave rationally or has an ulterior motive to act irrationally for financial benefit then any dispute can devolve into a grisly mess for everyone involved.
ProfServDC2329 668 days ago
OtherGA1003 - he said kill all the lawyers. Do you know the context of that quote? The character was saying that if you want to overthrow a government authority, then you should get rid of the lawyers.
Clients hire attorneys. Attorneys do not hire clients.
OtherGA1003 668 days ago
On the Foundation lawsuits, sound to me like the attorneys convinced them to go for the biggest pockets. Obviously the manufacturer will have more money to go after than anyone else involved. What was it that Shakespeare said about lawyers?
ProfServDC2329 668 days ago
Carl - as always, fantastic comments. The Foundation lawsuit is interesting in that the owner, contractor, and designer all settled their disputes and then jointly filed a lawsuit against the product manufacturer.
The landscaping scenario is an interesting one and is the type of scenario where communication with the homeowner is key. I wonder if the contractor communicated to the homeowner that non-invasive plants were required?
OtherGA1003 668 days ago
Chris - Nice overview of the legal situation that leads me to a few comments. I read your post on the Chesapeake Bay Foundation building which I saw several years ago on a tour at the National Green Building Conference. At the time, you could see the water intrusion around the beams that penetrated the exterior walls that you mention in your post. I am not surprised that the building has structural problems, but I think that your post and the comments posted missed a key issue - the design was defective. I appears to me that the architect, in trying to make a statement, created a design with structural members that ran continuously from interior to exposed exterior conditions, then expected "someone else" to come up with a technical solution that would make it work. Had they designed the building to properly manage water from the beginning, this would have likely never happened.
On another subject, as a Green Rater, I certify residential buildings under all available green building programs and in my contracts I never guarantee that a building will be certified and I advise my contractor clients to avoid committing to certification or any specific level of certification. Since the final building performance is key to determining the certification level, it is almost impossible to know how a building will score at completion, and many factors that the contractor is often not in control of affect required items and points or credits. I recently was wrapping up a certification and discovered that the homeowner had done all the landscaping and installed almost entirely invasive plants throughout the yard. This voided one of the prerequisites for LEED for Homes, so the project was basically dead in the water. Unless the owners remove all the plants that don't qualify, the house cannot be certified.
Carl Seville www.greencurmudgeon.com