When Skimping on HVAC Specs Left Seniors Fainting [TCFA Classic]

This “classic” episode from our first season has been re-edited for the benefit of our newest listeners, as a way to keep these evergreen lessons alive, We hope you enjoy listening to this story as much as we do presenting it to you

In a charitable society’s new home for the aged, where a limited budget led to an inappropriate air conditioning system, residents faint from unbearable heat. Can an architect be liable for this failure when they followed the client’s verbal instructions, even though these instructions were poorly considered?

Discover why verbal deals are a trap, how cutting corners burns you, and why the architectural professional’s standard of care trumps client whims.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

• Leave a Review
• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Access our Risk Education Library
• Speak with a Risk Services Expert if you’re an Ontario architect seeking guidance for a risk management issue.

Thank you for listening.

Chapters

• 0:00 Cold Open
• 0:43 Podcast Introduction
• 1:21 Episode Introduction
• 2:14 Share This Podcast With Your Colleagues
• 2:42 Story Begins
• 6:29 Lessons
• 8:37 Credits And Thanks

Transcript

In this Claim Story, an Architect fails to keep a written record of his client’s instructions, and unwisely equates residential standards with institutional requirements, putting himself firmly in the hot seat.

Keep listening to find out why we call this story, “A Home is not a House.”

The Architect Martin Pecunius was asked to design a new facility for Golden Dale Home for the Aged, based on instructions given to him by the Board of Directors. He was told that, since this is Canada, and not “the sunny south,” air conditioning was unnecessary, and there were no funds available to provide it. The Architect did not dispute this instruction and designed accordingly. A while later, the Board reversed its decision, deciding that air conditioning was, in fact, necessary, and money was found to pay for it.

The ventilating and cooling system that was subsequently provided was grossly inadequate.

The Board claimed that the system was a “disaster” that had resulted in residents actually passing out due to high temperatures and lack of air. When the original consultants failed to devise remedies, third party consultants were engaged. These consultants found gross inefficiency in the air handling, including an absence of thermal zoning – which was an absolute requirement for an institutional building.

The Board of Directors decided to sue the Architect, the General Contractor,  and the Subcontractor. The Mechanical Engineer was a third-party defendant.

In his defence, the Architect stated that the Home had been designed to budget-conscious residential – not institutional – standards. He had reached an agreement with the Board Chair that the air conditioning would be a low-cost, “minimum job” – just enough “to take the temperature down a little on the hottest days.” On the Architect’s instructions, the Mechanical Engineer had simply added an air conditioning unit to the domestic-style heating installation, which was a forced hot-air system, with tubular ducts.

The Architect maintained that he had relied completely on his Engineer. But in any case, the system was never intended to meet the use and occupancy levels that the building now had. Not only had the Board underestimated the number of residents, it had also failed to consider the volume of personal effects that the ose residents would pile onto the air registers in their units.

The Engineer stated that his minimal contract had called for three site visits during the construction, which meant that he did not observe workmanship, such as ductwork that had been covered over. He had followed the Architect’s instructions, doing the same as he would for any large house in any suburb. Most homes, even large ones, he said, have only one zone, and are cooled through the hot air system, just like this building.

 In the settlement, the Architect could produce no written evidence – of his design brief, or the instructions to design to residential minimal standards, or the decision to provide a minimal cooling system. The Owners couldn’t recall giving any such instructions – even denying that such standards were ever contemplated. The Engineer was a sub-consultant of the Architect, and had acted entirely under his direction.

The architect’s defence, was far too weak to justify a costly, protracted, drawn-out legal proceeding in court. The matter was therefore settled by Pro-Demnity, without the participation of: the Contractor, who proved to be insolvent; the Subcontractor, who could not be found by the bailiff; or the Engineer, who was uninsured and uncooperative. The Architect’s legal representation and expenses were covered by the Insurer in accordance with his professional liability policy.

An analysis of this case uncovers several lapses that should have been avoided – and, inevitably, there are valuable lessons to be learned.

First, a very Old Lesson: Get it in writing. Everything. It’s as simple as that. If the Architect had put the client’s instructions in writing, in the first place, and had the client sign off on them, a lot of grief could have been avoided.

Lesson 2: If consultants are hired by your client – and not by you – you may avoid being involved in legal actions against them. In this case, if the Client had contracted separately with the Engineer, the Architect and Pro-Demnity would, most likely, never have been involved. Failing that, the Architect should at least have made sure that the Engineer was adequately insured.

Lesson 3: Don’t allow your sympathy for a client’s self-declared poverty to lead you into making poor decisions. The Architect’s laudable desire to provide this worthy charity with a minimal cost building and stripped-down consulting services led him astray. And the client showed no sympathy toward him.

Lesson 4: Clients have a right to rely on an Architect’s professional knowledge. When clients make decisions based on their own sparse knowledge, Architects may have an obligation to step in ... and protect them from themselves.

Even if it were true – as we believe it was – that the Client had given verbal instructions to the Architect, as he stated, he may still not have been exonerated. As a professional, he had a duty to guard them from their own folly, and to Insist upon an adequate budget for the appropriate level of engineering input. The Client group, after all, consisted of social workers and volunteers who were not knowledgeable about such things, and would have benefited from the Architect’s professional guidance. It should have been obvious from the outset that the system they allegedly requested could not possibly have provided acceptable comfort levels.

As suggested at the beginning, you may very easily find yourself in circumstances like these. Remember these four lessons and, with care and good fortune, you won’t also find yourself in the hot seat.