The Claims-Free Architect

Why Cutting Corners For A Friend Ends Up Costing More

• Season 3 • Episode 5

Share episode

Can an architect successfully create a modern glass building on a tight budget by cutting corners on materials and detailing, or will such compromises ultimately lead to costly failures and potential legal consequences?

Architects should never compromise on essential design elements and quality materials to cut costs, even for friends or to achieve a specific aesthetic. Attempting to create a high-end look with subpar materials and inadequate detailing will likely result in significant structural issues, costly repairs, and potential legal troubles, ultimately costing far more than the initial savings.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

Thank you for listening.

You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear—or, as it turns out, a sleek modern building out of cheap aluminum windows.

In this story, which we call “Cutting Corners,” an Architect designs a “cutting-edge” building with inexpensive materials and detailing. When the structure deteriorates into a leaky liability, an old friendship frays at the corners, and an architect is backed into a corner, losing sleep and fearing ruinous punishment. 

Josef Brun and Abner Smitt had been friends since high school. Each had followed his own individual passion, Josef becoming an architect and Abner going into the insurance business. In time, Josef established his own practice and Abner opened his own agency. They still lived in the same neighbourhood and met up socially a few times a year. Old friends are good friends.

As Abner’s business flourished, it came time to advertise his success, by building a shiny new office building. Who better to design it than his good friend Josef Brun?

Over the years, Josef had stirred Abner’s interest in architecture, and the two often discussed the subject over dinner. Abner’s particular passion was Modernism, especially the work of the mid-century masters, like Mies van der Roe, Walter Gropius and Marcel Breuer. For his headquarters, he wanted a glass-wall building, along the lines of the Seagram Building or the TD Centre—but a miniature version—something with sleek, shiny walls and crisp corners.

The only catch was that Abner was a penny-pincher. He always looked for quality, but at the lowest price. And when his friend Josef described the expensive sort of detailing that would be required to realize his Modernist dream, he was stunned and disappointed. 

Josef Brun was not in the business of disappointing his clients, so he assured his old friend that he could design “a stylish glass box,” in the spirit of the great masters, but at a price Abner could afford. And this is what he designed and delivered: a sleek glass cube, with no projections, recesses, or fussy details of any kind. To achieve this effect, the Architect relied on an ingenious system consisting of flush aluminum windows and panels, sealed with lots of caulking to keep the water out . . . 

. . . Which it did, for almost a decade, although with re-caulking required from time to time.But after ten years, the moisture penetration had become extremely problematic. It was clear that serious repairs were required. Abner hired a firm of local contractors to do the necessary remedial work, which amounted to virtual reconstruction. It included many details necessary for the prevention of water infiltration, such as recessed windows, sills and flashings, small roof overhangs, and a proper entry canopy—elements that were obviously going to do a better job of keeping water out, but they would come at a substantial cost. In addition, they would completely destroy the building’s smooth “Modern” look.

The friendship between the Architect and the Insurance Executive had carried on, even though the pressures of running successful businesses meant that they got together less frequently.

But the new building repairs presented a watershed moment.

To Abner, it was starting to look as though his friend had deceived him all those years ago, by promising something that he couldn’t deliver. Brun hadn’t actually saved him money by cutting design corners; he had merely postponed the expense, and for what? A building that was nothing like what he had promised.

Abner Smit Insurance Agencies Inc. decided it was time to sue Josef Brun Architect.

In the Statement of Claim, Abner Smitt alleged that he had paid the Architect Josef Brun to design and review the construction of his new offices. The building had leaked profusely, almost from the beginning, leading to severe interior damage. On the basis of an expert’s report, he was in the process of replacing the exterior front and rear curtain walls, which, he stated, had been ill-designed and badly installed.The engineer’s report that accompanied the claim, left little doubt that an easy fix was out of the question. This was a million-dollar claim, at least.

From our analysis of the issue, we formed the opinion that we had a bad case, technically. The Architect’s desire to achieve a flush “Modern” look had led to a streamlined system, but one that lacked the details necessary to keep water out. His budget constraints had meant that a real curtain wall system with proper gaskets and engineered elements was not a possibility.

In effective curtain wall systems, design integrity is backed up by a warranty from the manufacturer. Also, they consist of laboratory tested assemblies, either internally drained “rain screens,” or face-sealed systems, with neoprene or similar gaskets, purpose-designed.

Josef Brun’s system was really no system at all. It was merely anodized aluminum windows set flush in a steel stud wall, along with shiny plastic panels. A five-millimetre design tolerance around the windows was filled by a caulking bead, as a means of preventing water penetration. But once water—whether driving rain, or melting ice—made its way past the caulking, as it was bound to do, it had free access to the insulation batts within the steel stud wall . . . and once the insulation was soaked, it had a clear path through the porous drywall and into the interior, where it soaked the broadloom, stained the walls and encouraged the growth of mould.

Brun was extremely upset that his friend was suing him. He had always been a good friend to Smitt. He was also a very competent and careful practitioner: In his many years of practice, he had never had any claims. This unique lapse in judgement had only occurred because he wanted to please his long-time friend, and now that friend was suing him, for an amount that would ruin him - since he had no excess insurance. He had taken to lying awake at night and dozing off during the day, and it was affecting his mental health as well.

The best explanation for the ruinous leaks in the building that Brun could provide was that the caulking had been poorly done. But hadn’t the Architect contracted to do site reviews? And since caulking was such a critical part of his “system,” shouldn’t he have noticed this poor workmanship and had it corrected?

We were short of options. The best defence position that we could see was to minimize the damage. The Plaintiff was claiming for a much more expensive replacement wall - which he should have budgeted for in the first place - that would include all necessary details to prevent leakage. But he shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from this improvement at the Architect’s expense. In other words, his recompense should not include any “betterment” that the new system would provide.

We considered bringing Deep Discount Aluminum Window Co., Plastic Galore Wall Systems Inc. and Takeoff Construction Inc. into the action. But all of them were now out of business and untraceable. Josef and Pro-Demnity would have to face the music alone.

It was clear that a trial had to be avoided.

The Discoveries were a nightmare for Brun. The pressure was more than he could manage. We worked for hours preparing him for each session, struggling for technical justifications, and taxing his memory of conversations, trying to find some way out of what we clearly foresaw as a cataclysm. His concern and remorse were only too evident. He was not good witness material . . . although a court might feel some sympathy for him.

In contrast, the Plaintiff had little to answer for. The matter was straightforward: the building leaked and the Architect was the only defendant left to answer for it.

The Claims Specialist talked the matter through with legal counsel. Both agreed that we had little by way of defence. To continue would only mean running up the legal bills, costs, and pre-judgement interest. The most vexing problem was that the Architect had no excess insurance and we were very afraid that a judgement might exceed his limits. His home and pension were at stake.

It was starting to look like the old adage “Never do business with friends or family” was painfully true. Josef Brun had allowed his friendship to cloud his business judgment, and it looked like his friend Abner Smitt had decided that business decisions were more important than friendship.

Abner was, in fact, aware of Josef’s financial position, and as a one-time friend, he felt some degree of sympathy. But as a businessman, he knew that any assets over and above the Architect’s insurance limits might not be “seizable,” since some pensions are protected, and family law also affords some protection to shared assets. 

All things considered, Abner decided to abandon the suit and try to reach a settlement. Over one hot summer weekend, opposing counsel called back and forth with the Claims Specialist, until a deal was struck. It was close to limits, but far enough below to be comfortably acceptable.

And for those of you who like happy endings - this includes architects and other optimists - When Josef Brun learned of the outcome, he had his first full night’s sleep in months. Soon afterwards, he patched things up with his old friend. The two now see each other regularly, once again. All has been forgiven. 

And lessons have been learned.

Lesson No. 1. Water is a powerful force, and building envelopes face a constant challenge. Exterior wall systems are a leading cause of claims that derive from detailing.

Lesson No. 2: You can’t afford to lower your standards, even once, for the sake of a design effect. The portfolio photos may look terrific, but the gloss may soon fade. Cutting corners has its costs. 

Lesson No 3: Speak with your professional liability insurer or review your policy to understand any technical requirements that may qualify for water ingress coverage.

Lesson No. 4: Insurance should always provide peace of mind. Review your professional liability insurance coverage annually, to ensure you are carrying sufficient limits for your practice, aligned with your growth and plans for growth.