The Claims-Free Architect

When An Incorrectly Placed Septic Field Repeatedly Floods A Hillside Home [TCFA Classic]

• Pro-Demnity Insurance Company • Season 1 • Episode 2

Share episode

Send us a text

On a hillside, a misplaced septic field turns a cozy retreat into a flood zone, and owners battle murky waters at midnight. Can an architect be liable for this deluge when they only suggested the field’s general layout, and not its specifics?


Learn why verbal orders drown you, how specialists save the day, and why proper site reviews catch errors.

Connect with Pro-Demnity:

Thank you for listening.

This Story describes the case of an Architect who ventures out of his professional depth and finds himself in deep, dangerous, and very dirty water. It’s the site levels and not the architecture that cause the problems, but once again the Architect’s defence is seriously hampered by the lack of written records.

For reasons that will soon become apparent, this story is called … “Field Level”

Norman and Marie Hill had purchased a dramatic hillside lot on which to build their dream home. They hired Architect Lucas Bering to design this cozy retreat, and subsequently contracted then the Flood Brothers, General Contractors, to construct it.

The site, being far from municipal services, required a septic field. But because the terrain fell steeply from back to front, an obvious problem presented itself: Where could the septic field be placed? 

As a solution, the Architect located the field beside the house, and surrounded it with attractive landscaping berms. But unfortunately, the berms and the slightly elevated level of the septic field prevented natural drainage, with the result that the house flooded frequently.

The Owners were suing the Architect and the Contractor. The Architect and the Contractor were suing each other.

The Pleas from the Plaintiffs were blunt and concise: “We refuse to pay the balance of the money owed to the Contractor, as well as the holdback, until the problem is solved. We hired an Architect to look after the construction of our residence, and we have suffered serious damages that speak for themselves as to liability. Our Architect failed in his duty.”

At trial, the Owners recounted harrowing experiences of working at midnight in mid-winter, digging trenches to redirect flood water.

In his defence, the Architect stated that he had really only indicated the “general arrangement” for the septic field. It was up to the Contractor to locate it and verify the levels and dimensions – with the understanding that discrepancies would be brought to the Architect’s attention. He felt he had done as much as he could, by giving oral directions to the workers.

The Contractor claimed that he had recommended placing the house a foot higher, but the Architect had rejected the suggestion. This was confirmed in written evidence. He also claimed that the level of the septic field was determined by the local authority, which was also true and confirmed by evidence. As a final rebuke, he claimed that the Architect had interfered with the work and would not listen to reason.

The judge found that both Defendants, the Architect and the Contractor, were “jointly and severally liable” – in other words, they were both responsible for the unhappy state of affairs. The Owners had every right to expect the Architect to ensure against major errors, but the Contractor also had a duty: to protect them against errors that were plain to see.

Since the Architect’s error was an insurable risk under his professional liability insurance policy, the costs and legal fees involved in defending him were covered by Pro-Demnity – as were the damages, since the Architect had been found jointly and severally liable with the Contractor.  

As in any good story, there are Lessons to be Learned. An analysis of this case leaves us with three important pieces of wisdom.

Lesson 1: When dealing with a difficult site, hire professional consultants to help with problems. This Architect should not have intervened, but should, instead, have insisted that a Landscape Architect or Surveyor be engaged to locate the septic system.

Lesson 2: Always issue written instructions, have your client sign off, and keep the instructions as records. Memories of oral instructions are unreliable and of little value in a legal action. The Architect’s reliance on statements such as, “I told him to dig a swale right over there,” proved to be worthless.

Lesson 3: There should be no half-measures when it comes to reviewing the work in progress. Forget the fine print. If you are on the scene of the error and don’t correct it, the error is yours.

The judge in this case did not buy the idea that “review” is somehow a lesser duty than “inspection.” Quoting from Hudson’s Tenth Edition, the construction law bible, he stated: “An Architect must properly supervise the works and inspect them with sufficient frequency to ensure that the materials and workmanship conform to contractual requirements.”

As suggested at the beginning, you may very easily find yourself in circumstances similar to these. Remember these three lessons and take care. With a little good fortune, you won’t find yourself in deep, dangerous and dirty water.