May 3, 2016 was a pretty big day for ACEC.  SB 885, the Duty to Defend legislation, was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Though there’s still a long road ahead to get to the point where we, as consultants, will not be held financially responsible to defend our clients for issues that are not our responsibility, this key hurdle has been cleared!

I was happy to personally thank Senator Wolk for her support and effort.  A huge factor in this success was the Senator’s reputation.  Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, the Committee Chair, asked probing questions and essentially got the opposition to agree that there is an issue that should be addressed.  Senator Jackson’s put it in Senator Wolk’s hands to further refine the bill to better address some concerns that should not prevent us from achieving our fundamental objective.

Our opposition was formidable.  School districts, municipalities, agencies and the building industry lined up and voiced opposition.   This parade may have been what triggered Senator Jackson to voice a concern that the bill might negatively impact infrastructure improvements.  To that we can vehemently state that ACEC would not support laws that would make infrastructure delivery more challenging.  As this bill moves forward, we should emphasize this point.

Special thanks goes to Roger Ball of Rick Engineering.  His passionate plea for justice was truly moving.  From Roger’s oration, the Committee gained the understanding that consultants were being saddled with legal costs to defend others after the courts found no fault in the consultant’s work.  Roger deserves an inbox full of grateful e-mails for the extraordinary effort he has put into this cause leading up to and including May 3rd.  Thank you, Roger!

Finally, Gene Erbin, ACEC-CA’s attorney, did a magnificent job presenting clear arguments and responding to questions.  The opposition tried to convince the committee that the issue is about insurance and consultants should simply figure out a way to get insurance.  Gene clearly explained that all potential avenues for this option had been exhausted.  He did discuss a concept of placing a reasonable limit on the consultant’s liability in response to one question.  This part of the discussion may not be over.

Also, I thank all of you from Sierra Chapter who showed up to the hearing!  The big turnout really helped.