legal issues arising in leed™ construction marina pratchett qc leed green associate fasken...

Legal Issues Arising in LEED™ Construction

Marina Pratchett QCLEED Green Associate

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLPApril, 2012

Overview of Legal Proceeding s

New risks

Developing Standard of Care

Inadequate contract language

No precedents


From the perspective of claims and actions it is early days in development of LEED™

We can predict where legal actions might arise.

We look to the US to observe developments


Types of cases divide into categories:LEED certification process:

Responsibility for

Damages for failure to obtainRefunds of grants, loans, tax incentives

Liquidated damages


Types of cases divide into categories:Alleged misrepresentations regarding impact of LEED:

overpromising, under-delivering – sustainable promises/representations vs actual measured performance – eg energy performance


Types of cases divide into categories:Product Liability

materials or systems that do not work as expected or do not work like non LEED products or require more time or are more expensive or have higher maintenance costs than anticipated

Eg paints, glues, green roofs, recycled rainwater

.

:


Types of cases divide into categories:Competing Standards/Codes

Which applies


Types of cases divide into categories:Challenges

to FSC wood: Wood lobby in US – most local wood not FSC – allege discriminationDept of Defence US – prohibits appropriation of funds to achieve LEED Platinum or Gold unless can certify no additional costs of show a financial payback. Also required by June 30, 2012 report on energy efficiency standards including cost benefit analysis of ROI of LEED, Ashrae 189.1 and Ashrae 90.1 2010

Overview of Legal Proceedings: Some examples:

.

:


Henry Gifford et al v US Green Building Council US District Court, Southern District, NY 10-7747 action alleging deceptive trade practices, false advertising. Alleges that US GBC misrepresents the efficacy of LEED from an energy savings standpoint and misrepresents the results of a 2008 study performed for USGBC


Henry Gifford et al v US Green Building Council (cont’d)

Gifford claims that USGBC and LEED rating systems make false promises

Focus of the claim is false advertising and consumer protection


Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., 69 AD 3d 212

Injunction

requiring specific performance of a construction loan for a ‘green’ shopping centre

Part of the funding secured was tax-exempt green bonds


Destiny USA Holdings, LLC v Citigroup Global Markets Realty Corp., (contd)

Green elements – promised conservation and technology goals not achieved

Possibility that IRS would review tax exempt status of the bonds

This would affect the tax to be paid by investors


Syracuse Industrial Development had given the project 30 years tax abatement

IRS has now announced intention to audit


Building Industry Association of Washington, Air America Inc et al v Washington State Building Code Council US District Ct. Washington,

Conflicting standardsSeeks an injunction against enforcement of certain provisions of the Washington State Energy Code, then coming into force, which conflict with federal law and regulations governing energy efficiency of residential HVAC and plumbing products


The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute v City of Albuquerque, US District Ct, District of New Mexico, 08 633

Conflicting standards

Challenges to green building codes may be on the rise


Riverhouse Condominium in ManhattanOpened in 2007


RIverhouse (cont’d)Action commenced based on allegations that the building does not meet the promised/represented sustainability-performance standards.The lawsuit seeks $5.3 million in damages and alleges that the building's green HVAC system not provide adequate heat and that many green features in each condo are not in fact built to LEED Gold standards.


Riverhouse complaint alleges that the building “was marketed as being at the cutting edge of ‘green’ technology - a LEED Gold-rated building featuring fresh filtered air, filtered water, eco-friendly materials and is designed for low energy consumption.Complaints: cold drafts. insufficient heat, unsatisfactory energy audit, (a deviation of 49 percent over the LEED standards in air infiltration)


Shaw Development v Southern BuildersContract required LEED silver certificationCertification not obtainedDamages claimed >$700,000 plus lost tax creditsDeveloper sued builderNo clear allocation of risk in contractAction settled.

S


Washington DC v Washington National Owner alleged green expectations not met and withheld $3.5 million

S


Eagle River Wisc. A group of residents challenged (unsuccessfully) the LEED rating given to a new high school.


Chesapeake Bay Foundation v Weyerhaeuser Co.

Allegations of “defective, inferior or unsuitable building products for a construction project.”

Design called for certain re-cycled and environmentally friendly products

Product was parallam beams and preservatives


Chesapeake Bay Foundation v Weyerhaeuser Co.

Specs provided that materials had to be approved by architect.

Manufacturer’s shop drawings indicated intent to use a particular sealant

Architect’s approval to the sealant not obtained (review of shop drawings not = approval)

Claim amount $6million

Sample

Taken from a full page advertisement in the Okanagan SNAP, vol 5, no 9, April 2011, re SOPA Square Development:

“Why Sustainable Choices Matter! :Sustainable designed buildings like SOPA use about 36% less energy than conventional buildings.

Green buildings have operating efficiencies that reduce emissions and are less harmful to the ozone layer“

Turning to the Contracts

Contractual drafting and negotiation all about identifying risks and allocating

In theory allocation should be fair, going to the person best able to control and contain the risk

In practice allocation is lob-sided in favour of the person with best leverage at time of tender/contract – market driven risk assumption

Overview of Legal Issues

Liquidated Damages vs Penalties

Consequential Losses

Waivers

Impact of Changes

New Players - certification body, GBF, energy modelers

Overview of Legal Issues

Warranties

Third party warranty providers

Product Liability

Costs not properly explained

Emerging technologies – eg green roof systems, geothermal systems,


In the USConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum

AIA -


ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum

Defines the role of a “Green Building Facilitator:

GBF could be architect, contractor or a third party

Defines role of GBF – does not necessarily impose liability for certification on GBF


ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building AddendumComments on risk allocation – defaults to underlying contractsDefines ‘consequential losses’ broadly as including owner’s loss of income, loss of profit, reductions in operating and maintenance costs, tax or other benefits, marketing opportunities, credits and says that all of these are subject to waiver of CD”s in underlying contracts


ConsensusDocs 310 Green Building Addendum

Also says no project participant other than possibly the GBF is responsible for failure to achieve Green Status (as defined)


AIA B 214 (2007)

Identifies LEED AP

No responsibility for failure to certify

Turning to Contracts

Canadian ApproachTypically, architectural contracts expressly state that they are not liable for certification and contain limitation of liability clause


Canadian ApproachSome drafters appear not to understand LEED

Loosely worded “LEED” sections being added to contracts without reference to any other provisions


Drafting Tips Consider and deal with a risk of changes in laws and standards, and even changes in professional requirements.

Identify clearly who plays what role – and what the deliverables for each party will be


Drafting Tips

All of the following clauses must be looked at through green eyes

Change orders

Delays

Force Majeure

Substitution


Holdbacks

Representations and warranties

bonding, insurance

damages, LD’s, -consequential losses, waivers


Close out procedures

Substantial Completion

Document Retention

Submittals, O & M training

QA/QC


Drafting Tips Consider issues around concurrency of “faults”


What are the actual and real consequences and damages to the owner of not achieving a ‘certification”

Holdbacks disproportionate to real costs and damages may be classified as ‘penalties’ or forfeiture and thus rendered unenforceable or in BC subject to being set aside under s. 24 of the Law and Equity Act (“The Court may relieve against all penalties and forfeitures”)


Costly Contract TermsMandating certification

Costs of LEED rating and certification

LEED point chasing

Maintaining Holdback pending certificationRecent example – defined LEED as version 1

Major holdback to certification


In US third party certification being replaced with green building codes.

International Green Construction Code


Costly Contract TermsProduct specifications that have the effect of sole sourcing


Where products and systems are specified, contractors are asserting they are not responsible when the product or system fails

QUESTIONS

legal issues arising in leed™ construction marina pratchett qc leed green associate fasken...

Documents

legal actions

legal issues

usgbc slide

developments slide

energy performance slide

development of leed

impact of leed

efficacy of leed