Mistake in the Plans

 Most surprises on a construction site fall into one of three categories:

• Differing site conditions – hidden or highly unusual conditions no one would have anticipated.
• Change in scope of the work – something discovered later, such as by the inspector.
• Mistake or omission in the plans – something the designer got wrong or didn’t consider.

I’ve covered differing site conditions and changes in the scope of work elsewhere. Mistake in the plans is different.

Earlier this month, a perfect example came across my desk. When it came time to connect the building sewer line to the sewer main, the plumbing sub discovered two mistakes -- both the diameter and location of the sewer main were wrong on the site plan. As with every surprise, the question was, “Who pays?”

Of course, construction contractors have to follow the plans. But it’s not that simple. Courts usually put it this way: A contractor has an implied duty to give notice when something in the plans either isn’t clear or seems defective. If the plans or specs seem inconsistent or wrong, take it up with the designer, engineer and owner before work starts.

But that wasn’t the issue with the plumbing contract on my desk. Nothing on the site plan was either missing or obviously wrong. Work was nearly done when the mistake was discovered. The civil engineer either made an error or didn’t bother to check district records.

What Should the Contractor Do?

1. Make the connection. Settle up on costs later.
2. Complete the job as shown in the plans. Leave the sewer line connected to nothing.
3. Stop work until the owner and prime contractor write a change order.

Before you answer, consider a case from the Wyoming Supreme Court (Hogan v. Postin).

The millwork sub, Hogan, agreed to make and install windows for restoration of the historic Tivoli Building in downtown Cheyenne. Postin was the architect and supervised Hogan’s work. When Hogan got started, he discovered a problem. The ceiling height on the plans wasn’t the same as the actual ceiling height. Hogan notified Postin of the mistake in his plans. Postin told Hogan to make the windows the size shown on the plans. To do that, the sill height had to be raised to 39 inches, not 27 inches as shown on the plans. Hogan built the storefront in his shop exactly as shown on the plans.

When Hogan installed the windows, Postin had a beef. He didn’t like the sill height. Postin wanted the sill height one foot lower (27 inches). Hogan agreed to re-do the windows and offered to keep track of the extra time and materials. The general contractor agreed that a 39” sill height was wrong and told Hogan to make the change. When Hogan tried to collect for the extra work, both the City of Cheyenne and the general contractor had a defense. There was no written change order, as required by both the prime and subcontracts.

So Hogan sued the architect, Postin. His plans were wrong. The trial court found in favor of Hogan, ruling the architect had to pay. Postin appealed. The district court reversed, ruling the architect was not personally liable for his mistake. Hogan appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court. A majority of the supreme court affirmed the district court’s decision. Postin was not personally liable for his mistake in the plans. According to the majority, Postin was speaking for the City when he told Hogan to re-do the windows. As an agent of the City, Postin was not personally liable for a commitment made to benefit the City. But Hogan couldn’t collect from the City. There was no written change order. Pure Catch 22.

I prefer the dissent by Justices Rooney and Cardine. In directing Hogan to do the extra work, Postin waived the requirement for a written change order. Let Hogan collect from the City.

My Point

Mistakes in the plans can be a minefield. Tread carefully. The best protection is a well-written contract. In my sewer connection case, the plumber had an agreement drafted with Construction Contract Writer, including plenty of good language covering mistakes .Problem solved.

 

Who Pays for Mistakes

You’ve been here before. Every contractor has.

Something doesn’t pass inspection. It’s clearly wrong. Work has to be torn out and re-done. The question is, “Who pays?” Was it the fault of the prime? Or the sub? Or the architect or engineer?

The Easy Case

If the approved plans and specs are clear and work wasn’t done as prescribed, it’s the contractor’s mistake. No question. Case closed.

But what if the plans and specs aren’t clear? Or are clearly in conflict? For example, suppose the plans show studs 16” o.c. and the specs call out 24” o.c. A mistake like that drops us into what lawyers call precedence of the documents. Some construction contracts go on and on about which prevails if there’s a conflict between plans, specs, industry standards, etc. Logic dictates that precedence favor what was truly intended, assuming anyone actually considered the issue. For example, handwritten notes and change orders should get precedence over either plans or specs.

What if the plans and specs are mute on some point? That’s a tougher case. Is it the designer’s fault? True, architects and engineers have been found liable for simple omissions. But don’t expect either to cover the cost of ambiguity in the plans. The cost of fixing what’s broken usually falls on contractors and subs. It’s a risk inherent in the construction process.

Obviously, there’s a good way to stay out of trouble. If the plans and specs aren’t clear, if you aren’t sure what the code requires, if something doesn’t seem right, start asking questions. Don’t assume. Don’t let anyone pick up tools while there’s doubt about the finished product.

Courts usually put it this way: A contractor has an implied duty to give notice when something either isn’t clear or seems defective. A leading case on this is Rubin v. Coles, decided in New York in 1931. The addition to a brick building in Flatbush was subsiding. The building department cited the owner. Eventually the contractor was called to account. His defense was perfect. The foundation complied exactly with the plans. According to Judge Geismar, that wasn’t enough. Most of Flatbush is built on filled soil. The contractor, not the designer, is the man on the spot, put there to use his training and experience to either correct plans or at least give warning of the defect.

It has been repeatedly held that, even though he be bound to follow fixed plans and specifications, the contractor owes the duty to examine such plans and judge of their sufficiency; that he is bound to discover defects that are reasonably discoverable or patent; and where he knows or had reason to believe that the plans are defective, and follows them without pointing out such defects to the owner or architect, he is not entitled to recover if the building proves insufficient because of such defects.

Now the Hard Part

Notice the words, “that he is bound to discover defects that are reasonably discoverable or patent.” In Rubin v. Coles, the plans were silent on depth of the foundation. “It was, therefore, the duty of the contractors to construct it upon solid ground so as to produce a level structure, even though it might have been necessary to make greater excavation or more substantial fill."

Decide for yourself. Is that a reasonable standard? Should contractors make design decisions when something seems out of place? I’m not convinced. Fortunately, there’s an easy way to put risk of design flaws back where it belongs, on the owner or design professional. Write two points into your contracts: The contractor has no obligation to either (1) detect design errors or (2) amend dimensions and descriptions in the plans.

Construction Contract Writer makes it easy to draft agreements like that. Mistakes don’t have to add to your cost. The trial version is free.