Employers may be at risk of professional liability
In an article written by Wragge & Co. partner, Louise Smith, raised an interesting point concerning the definition of a contractor responsible for the design element of a project, and insurance implications that may arise.
Even the traditional arrangement whereby the project plan has agreed to a separate company specializing will almost certainly make some "design" decisions. The design is never defined, literally, all the necessary work has been completed.
But what happens if something goes wrong? Unless you have a very specific provision to the contrary, a model of contract usually interpreted to mean that the employer has a duty to provide finished works that are "fit for purpose". And this hypothesis in itself means that the contractor admitted that the design is adequate.
So if the final project should not be "fit for purpose" of the contractors could be sued, even if the problem was essentially a design problem. And as the article states, that contractor may not exceed the obligation to a third party may also find that the lack of ability to aim is not covered by professional liability insurance policy deviation.
