Legally Insured
By Peter Christensen
This article originally appeared in, and is reprinted from, the Right of Way Magazine (September/October 2017 issue). © 2017 by the International Right of Way Association. Archives of Right of Way magazine, including Peter's past columns, are available at http://www.rightofwaymagazine-digital.org
Arming yourself against disgruntled property owners
Several years ago, I fielded a call from
a real estate appraiser reporting a
potential claim. She told me that she had
recently inspected a vacant residential
property and was being threatened with
a lawsuit by the owner. When I asked for
details, she explained that after arriving
at the property, the owner had greeted
her and let her inside. The owner
then left her alone to complete the
inspection, instructing her to lock the
front door behind her after finishing.
A week later, she got an angry call
from the owner. He accused her of
leaving water running in a bathroom
sink, claiming that the sink had
overflowed for a long period of time,
causing extensive water damage. He
threatened to sue her unless she paid
for the repairs. At the end of the day,
the appraiser stood her ground. She had
not turned on the sink. She explained to
me that if she needed to use a restroom,
she would not have used the decrepit
facilities in the vacant home, and she
had photos showing their sorry state.
The owner eventually backed down and
did not sue.
While this is not necessarily a big or
a typical claim against an appraiser or
other right of way professional, there is a
teaching point to it. It is to illustrate why
right of way professionals may want to
carry insurance that will protect them
against legal claims relating to their
services.
Two Primary Types
There are two primary insurance
policies maintained by right of
way professionals. One is general
liability (GL) and the other
is professional liability, often
referred to as errors and omissions
insurance (E&O). Both forms of
coverage are commonly required
in government contracts for right
of way work but are often times
misunderstood.
The GL policy is designed for
two purposes: 1) claims involving
bodily injury and 2) property
damage arising from services/
operations. If a property owner sues
the appraiser for water damage,
a GL policy would pay for the
appraiser’s legal defense and/or
the damages because the claim is
property related. If the story had
involved someone slipping in the
overflowing water, the defense of
that claim would also be under a
GL policy because of the bodily
injury. The reality is that property
damages and bodily injury claims
are rarely filed against appraisers
and right of way agents. However,
they are a bit more common against
relocation agents.
The key limitation of a standard
GL policy is that it does not cover
claims for economic harm to a third
party arising from your services.
For example, consider a common
professional negligence claim:
an appraiser makes a negligent
overvaluation mistake causing
the client to significantly overpay
for a property, and the client sues
the appraiser for its financial loss.
Because this scenario does not
involve bodily injury or property
damage, a GL policy would not
provide coverage. This is where
E&O comes in.
E&O covers claims for economic
losses due to errors and omissions
in your professional services. In practice, E&O claims are more
common than GL claims among
professionals that provide right of
way services, and this is why E&O
generally costs more than GL for such
professionals.
Avoiding Common Claims
To reduce the risk and insure yourself
properly, it’s best to focus on the most
common claims and think about how
they can be avoided. Based on our
experience and research, here are
the most common legal claims seen
in practice for right of way agents,
appraisers and relocation agents
stemming from services offered:
Right of Way Agents
In a case filed earlier this year, a large
right of way services firm was sued
by 20 plaintiff property owners who
all resided in the same county. The
case relates to a pipeline, and the right
of way agents allegedly negotiated
with the property owners on behalf
of the pipeline company to acquire
easements for its construction and
permanent placement. The owners
had accepted offers of compensation,
signed easement agreements and
received payment in full. But now they
were suing the right of way services
firm contending that they had been
misled into accepting compensation
that was too low.
This is a difficult claim to sustain
legally because easement agreements
typically contain contractual clauses
under which the owners represent
that any agreements or promises
relevant to their acceptance of the
compensation are contained within
the easement agreement itself. In
other words, the owners contractually
state that everything they’ve been
promised is contained in the
agreement and that the agreement is
final as to what they are entitled to.
So to get around that legal challenge,
the plaintiffs in the case are doing
what others commonly try—alleging that they were fraudulently induced
by false statements to enter into the
agreements. They claim: “The right
of way agent told me that the amount
offered was the best anyone in my
county would ever get,” or “I was told
that if I didn’t sign the agreement, I’d
be sued in a condemnation lawsuit and
end up with less.”
This lawsuit is typical of professional liability claims against right of way agents because the plaintiffs are aggrieved property owners who are unhappy with the result after the fact. In practice, right of way agents are less commonly sued by their own clients. We have
also observed from actual claims that
right of way agents working on public
acquisition projects for governmental
entities are far less likely to be sued by
anyone in connection with their work
than those performing similar services
for the private sector, such as for
pipeline projects or for the acquisition
of rights in connection with oil, gas
or mineral extraction. We believe that
a major reason for the difference in
liability risk may be linked to greater
oversight of the overall process by
governmental entities and stricter legal
concern for the protection of property
owners’ interests.
Real Property Appraisers
Appraisers performing valuation
services for right of way purposes
also face claims from disappointed
property owners. The property owner
will allege, again in hindsight, that
they accepted unreasonably low
compensation because the appraisal
they were provided negligently valued
the taken property. In other claims,
even property owners who turned
down an offer based on an allegedly
low appraisal and recovered more
in the condemnation action have
sued appraisers—their claim being
that if the appraisal had been higher,
the property owner would not have
incurred the time and expense of
litigation.
While E&O claims from third
parties (i.e., non-clients) are most
common, appraisers performing
right of way work do get legal claims
from their own clients if it’s believed
that the valuation was negligently
performed. Fortunately, it is rare that
a governmental entity will actually
decide to sue an appraiser engaged
on its behalf.
There is, however, a common series
of events that emerges in situations
where the government has actually
made a claim against an appraiser.
The claims are usually brought when:
a) a court hearing a condemnation
action has pointed to outright errors
or omissions in the appraisal work
(not merely differences of opinion)
as the basis for an unfavorable
decision, b) the government entity
client has decided to withhold the
appraiser’s final payment because of
deficient work, and c) the appraiser
has provoked the government entity
by suing the government to collect
the unpaid fee.
The predictable result is that the
government files a counterclaim for
professional negligence against the
appraiser. The lesson from this is
that if your client has been hit with a
very bad outcome in which the court
pointed to your appraisal as being
negligently performed, think hard
before suing your client to collect on
that particular work.
Their close involvement with individual displaces and the wide variety of services they perform pose liability risks from many angles.
Relocation Agents
Relocation agents are in a tough
spot when it comes to claims.
Much of their job often involves
day-to-day contact with property
owners being displaced by a project.
Whether they are working with
an owner on a move or arranging
for temporary accommodations,
relocations can put both residential
and commercial property owners/
occupants under stress and in
financial hardship. Their close
involvement with displaced individual and the wide variety of
services they perform pose liability
risks from many angles.
For example, will the moving
company they referred break an
urn containing the ashes of the
property owner’s mother, and the
relocation agent gets blamed for
negligently recommending them?
Believe it or not, this is an actual
claim that happened. Or will the
agent be accused of promising
relocation benefits that never
materialize? Although it’s difficult
to pinpoint what the subject will
be, as with right of way agents and
appraisers, most claims against
relocation agents come from the
property owner or occupant, not
their clients.
Being Adequately Prepared
While it’s difficult to address
every situation that a right of way
professional may face, we can offer
some suggested basic practices
that will help prevent claims from
happening, or at least make them
easier to defend.
Keep contact logs. We suggest
keeping detailed, contemporaneous
logs of each contact with property
owners/occupants. These parties
are the most common sources
of claims. Good contact logs can
help prevent claims assuring that communications are accurate, timely and consistent. They can also work to
defend potential claims by providing
credible evidence to back up your
actions.
Beware of difficult parties. When
you run into a difficult property
owner/occupant, tread carefully.
In our experience, these acerbic
individuals are the ones most likely to
drag you into court.
Oversee your accounts receivable.
You want to get paid, of course. Aside
from that, keeping control of accounts
receivable reduces liability claims
because suing to collect from a client for
unpaid fees creates the risk of the
client countering with a professional
liability claim.
By being fully aware of the most
common risks—and following some
basic best practices—right of way
professionals can protect themselves
from potential legal claims.
This article originally appeared in, and is reprinted from, the Right of Way Magazine (September/October 2017 issue). © 2017 by the International Right of Way Association. Archives of Right of Way magazine, including Peter's past columns, are available at http://www.rightofwaymagazine-digital.org