Generally, on construction projects, contractors
provide an owner with a workmanship warranty. In addition, a contractor may
supply the owner with manufacturer or material warranties after a project is
completed.
Generally,
on construction projects, contractors provide an owner with a workmanship
warranty. In addition, a contractor may supply the owner with manufacturer or
material warranties after a project is completed. Although these types of
warranties are provided by the contractor to the owner, the owner also provides
certain warranties to the contractor during the course of construction. One
such warranty is the implied warranty of constructability, also known as the
implied warranty of fitness and plans or the Spearin Doctrine. This article
will discuss the Spearin Doctrine and its applicability to construction
projects.
Unless the contractor is engaged in a design-build project, the contractor is
normally provided with a set of plans, specifications and design documents from
the owner. The design documents may either be generated by the owner or at the
owner’s request by an architect, engineer or other design professional. The Spearin
Doctrine provides that the contractor is entitled to rely on the design
documents provided by the owner. The contractor is bound to build the project
according to the plans and specifications prepared by the owner or at the
owner’s request. Under these circumstances, the contractor is not responsible
for the consequences of design defects.
An
owner implicitly warrants that if a contractor complies with the plans and
specifications, which later prove to be defective, the contractor will not be
liable to the owner for the loss or damage which results solely from the design
deficiencies. In U.S. v. Spearin, the United States Supreme Court articulated
the implied warranty of constructability. In that case, the Court recognized to
a certain extent the contractor is bound by the design provided to it on the
project and that the contractor should not be liable for defects in that
design. The Supreme Court also stated that the owner’s duty to provide accurate
plans and specifications is not overcome by provisions in the contract
requiring the contractor to: (1) check plans; (2) visit the site; or (3) assume
responsibility for the construction until the project is completed and accepted
by the owner.
Many states have adopted the Spearin Doctrine and applied its reasoning to
construction projects. However, not all states follow the Spearin Doctrine, but
those that do often hold the owner liable for delay damages as a result of
design deficiencies. If the design documents are faulty and unreasonably delay
completion of a construction project, the owner may be in breach of contract
entitling the contractor to additional compensation. (See Philips and Jordan v.
Dept. of Transportation.)
The Spearin Doctrine is an important tool that can be utilized by a contractor
to defeat alleged claims for defective construction. For example, an owner may
claim that the contractor defectively constructed the roof of an office
building. After forensic examination, it is determined that the design of the
roof was faulty. Under those circumstances, assuming the state recognizes the
Spearin Doctrine, the contractor would not be liable for structural
deficiencies.
Contractual provisions in AIA documents and other construction contracts
attempt to cut against the Spearin Doctrine, and courts may be less willing to
look the other way when it comes to blatant design deficiencies. Therefore, the
contractor should thoroughly examine all design documents prior to construction
to determine their feasibility. During construction, if a design issue arises,
the contractor should notify the architect/engineer and owner’s representative
of any design defect immediately. Many construction contracts allow for the
request for information process (RFI) which allows contractors to request
information and clarification on design-related issues from the architect or
engineer of record.
By understanding and utilizing the Spearin Doctrine, contractors may be able to
defeat owner claims related to design deficiencies and preserve and prosecute
claims for delay damages arising out of design defects.
Author’s note: The information contained in this article is for general
educational information only. This information does not constitute legal
advice, is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied
upon as legal advice for your specific factual pattern or situation.
Drawing Board: The Implied Warranty of Constructability