Hidden Land Mines: Identifying (and Managing) Risk in LEED/Green Building Projects

Anyone in the construction industry, particularly those involved in LEED/green building projects, has probably realized that it not a matter of "if" green building litigation will come, but "when" and "how." To date, green building litigation has been pretty infrequent, but anticipating where litigation will come from will be an important step in avoiding it.

One widespread school of thought has been that green building litigation will arise from projects that simply do not obtain the LEED requirements that are contracted for. Green or LEED-oriented buildings are much more costly to build than conventional buildings, and owners and developers pay a premium for this LEED branding. So they are clearly not going to be happy if a project does not obtain the certification that was expected. As with many construction defect or design defect cases, litigation may arise for breaches of contract or breaches of warranty.

However, this may not be the only theory of liability in the green building arena. A recent case out of Maryland, Shaw Development v. Southern Builders, suggests that the scope of potential liability may be broader.

The Shaw case arose in connection with a condo project in Maryland that included a number of green design features that were intended to support a LEED Silver application. The owner sued the general contractor seeking, among other things, over $600,000 in lost tax credits under a state green building program.

Maryland had provisions that provided tax credits to owners for building eco-friendly buildings. The procedure to receive this credit was to initially apply for a sort of preliminary certification of the project. The project would be built and then, when completed, it would be evaluated for final approval. The preliminary certification, however, contained an expiration date, and the condo project at issue in Shaw was not completed before that project’s preliminary certification expired.

The lawsuit in Shaw did not specify exactly how the general contractor was to be liable, and the case settled prior to trial so there is no precedential value either. However, it is quite possible that the design actually was adequate–the project was just not delivered in time to qualify for the tax credits.

So what is the lesson to be learned from Shaw? Actually, the key in all green building contracts, particularly ones that contemplate LEED certifications and/or green-based tax credits (or even service provider discounts, such as electricity) is to define and clarify risk and set out which party will be liable for certain failures. That means being sure your contract actually fits the project and isn’t just a blanket form (Note: the contract at issue in Shaw was an AIA form but clearly did not address these issues).

Assuming the Shaw facts–that a project failed to receive significant tax credits because it was completed late–who would be liable for those lost tax credits? Would it be the general contractor? The owner? The architect or engineer? What if the project was delayed because of unforeseeably bad weather? What if it was a subcontractor’s mistakes? Or the engineer’s delay in approving modifications to project specs? An electrician who installed bad wiring had no idea his work could result in the loss of a large tax credit–is it fair to hold him responsible?

The shifting of liability should be expressly laid out in the contract documents, including who is liable if a project fails to obtain certain certifications. By clearly defining these items, parties may be able to avoid the litigation that comes with uncertainty in contract provisions. At a minimum, however, parties will put themselves in a better position if litigation does in fact arise.