As has been pointed out, protective insurance against suits arising from such occurrences is growing increasingly expensive, and I agree that the situation is one which is in immediate need of correction. I therefore enthusiastically support these bills and urge that they be scheduled for immediate hearings. Yours very truly, NICHOLAS SATTERLEE. MCLEOD, FERRARA & ENSIGN A.I.A., Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, D., S.C., Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Your House District Committee is currently considering the hearing of a bill which greatly affects local architects practicing in the District of Columbia and immediate vicinity. At present, the District of Columbia has no Statute of Limitations concerning litigation brought against a professional architect, engineer or contractor in cases which arise when death or injury oceurs, even if the cause ean only remotely be attributable to defective design or workmanship. Basically a professional person is sincerely willing to stand behind his services to the client in matters where his personal action or judgement has caused real injury to a client or occupant of his building, however, there has arisen today a morally questionable climate involving the indiscriminate proliferation of lawsuits which have been directed against the architect as a third party. Frequently the issues at question are those over which his professional judgement has never been solicited or would have required continual "on the job surveillance" normally not a part of his contractual obligation to the client. The steady growth in the number of lawsuits directed against architects point to the need for a fair Statute of Limitations provision limiting such legal action to cases where negligence indeed does occur (usually determined within a few years of the building's construction). Currently an architect can be sued at any time during the life of his building for any cause which alleges to be even remotely considered a defect. Should the building outlast the architect, then such judgements can be carried against his heirs. Moreover, these suits are occasionally placed with the full knowledge that the architect is not a direct party to the alleged defect but he falls victim to the recent tendency of "shotgun" indictments. This procedure merely raises insurance premiums, which are, in turn, passed on to the clients in the form of higher fees, which are passed on to the general public and effectively deteriorates the moral issues which the law attempts to uphold. Your support in bringing an effective Statute of Limitations provision to hearings and ultimate enactment is urgently requested. Very truly yours, RICHARD J. PASSANTINO. MILTON J. PRASSAS & ASSOCIATES, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, D., S.C., Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This letter is addressed to you in an effort to encourage you to support the two House of Representatives Bills, HR 6527, and HR 6678, and also to support a scheduling of these Bills for immediate hearings, so that they may be acted upou by Congress before the end of this Session. To me, an Architect, these Bills are vital to my very professional existence. Over a period of several years now, the principal of third party liability suits, acted on favorably by courts all over this land, has created an untenable position for designers as well as constructors of real estate improvements. The fact that Architects, and after death, even their heirs, may be sued for work they designed as much as ten, fifteen and twenty years previously, for any kind of an accident or injury, during which period the improvement has been safely used by all of the people exposed to the facility during that period of time, shakes the very foundation of responsibility of the professional designer. This quest for a "free buck" on the part of persons injured, and the acquiescence on the part of the courts has not only made architecture an unrewarding profession, but threatens to destory it. Your cooperation in this request will be appreciated. MILTON J. PRASSAS. DONALD HUDSON DRAYER, A.I.A., Re H.R. 6527 or H.R. 6678 bills. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: It is hoped that you will consider and support the proposed bills providing for a statute of limitations in connection with improvements to Real Property for the District of Columbia. Under present law and current procedures in the court with reference to claims against Builders, Owners, and Professionals; Liability may extend to causes beyond their possible control. Your support will be appreciated. DONALD H. DRAYER, A.I.A. EDMUND W. DREYFUSS AND ASSOCIATES, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. As practicing Architects in the District of Columbia for many years, we are aware of the need and fully endorse this corrective and long overdue legislation. We, therefore, strongly urge that you support these bills and that they be scheduled for hearings at the earliest possible date. Respectfully, WILLIAM R. HENRY, A.I.A., SEGRETI & STILLWELL, A.I.A., Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This letter is to ask your support for the D.C. Statute of Limitation bills H.R. 6527 and H. R. 6678 and in particular the scheduling of these bills for hearings as soon as possible. This office feels that with the rapid increase in the number of law suits in regards to the construction industry that some method of limiting the time of responsibility on a project is mandatory. We feel most seriously that the possibility of our heirs being sued for claims arising out of old projects is extremely unfair. We would be most thankful for your consideration of these bills. Very truly yours, JAMES D. STILLWELL, A.I.A. MERCIER, SANDERS, BAKER & SCHNABEL, In re H.R. 6527. Mr. JAMES T. CLARK, Clerk, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CLARK: First off, let me thank you for your assistance to me at Monday's Sub-Committee Hearing on H.R. 6527. We are sorry, however, that we did not make our proposed amendments clear enough to the Committee. I will try to make them clearer in this letter so that when the Bill is acted on by the Full Committee it can consider the amendments. The first proposed amendment would delete the words "condition of" on Line 10 of Page 2 of H.R. 6527, and would substitute in lieu thereof the words "manner of effecting". Hence, the application of the Bill would be clearly defined to actions involving persons who had been involved with improving the real property, and not with the "condition" of an improvement to real property. This coincides with the intent, and is in the nature of a technical amendment. The second amendment we propose would delete the period at the end of Line 21 at Page 2, and would substitute a semicolon for the period and would add the following words after the semicolon-"provided, however, that in case such injury (including injury causing death) occurred during the fifth year after the date the improvement was substantially completed, then in such event the period referred to in Paragraph (1) shall end one year after the date on which such injury occurred (whether death occurred thereafter or not)." The purpose of this latter amendment is to assure a person who would have a claim qualifying under this Statute of Limitations of a minimum of at least one year after the injury occurs to perfect his claim by filing his action in Court. In other words, both amendments are designed to provide fairness to the public, and we think the full Committee should incorporate them into the Bill as it is adopted. Sincerely yours, ROBERT V. SCHNABEL. MR. ABERNETHY. Thank you very much, gentlemen. The committee will go into executive session. (Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee proceeded into executive session.) OCTOBER 6, 1967.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed Mr. MCMILLAN, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 6527] The Committee on the District of Columbia, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 6527), to amend title 12, District of Columbia Code, to provide a limitation of actions for actions arising out of death or injury caused by a defective or unsafe improvement to real property, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill do pass. The amendments are as follows: 1.) Page 1, line 3, strike out "That". 2.) Page 2, strike out lines 14 through 22 and insert in lieu thereof the following: shall be barred unless in the case where injury is the basis of "(2) For purposes of this subsection, an improvement 3.) Page 3, between lines 16 and 17, strike out "g". PURPOSE OF THE BILL The purpose of H.R. 6527 is to provide a limitation on the period of time during which an action may be brought to recover damages, contribution, or indemnity against architects, designers, engineers, or contractors on the ground of a defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property. At the present time in the District of Columbia there is no limitation as to the period of liability of an architect, engineer, or contractor for a defective or unsafe condition in an improvement to real property. Thus, such parties may become defendants in a suit brought by a person who sustains a personal injury in a building which was built 25 or even 50 years ago. The only limitation applying in such case under District of Columbia law is that such an action must be brought within 3 years after the date of the cause of action accrues. The bill, H.R. 6527, as amended, and reported by your Committee, would require that such an action would be barred unless it is brought within 5 years from the date the improvement to real property was substantially completed. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION In recent years there has been a substantial increase in the number of actions for the recovery of damages, contribution, or indemnity, for injury to property or persons or wrongful death against architects, engineers, and contractors, based upon a defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property. The District of Columbia, as was the case in the states, has no statute of limitations relating to such actions, Architects who design buildings or improvements to real property, engineers who design and install equipment, or contractors, who build the improvements under rigid inspection and conformity with building codes, may find themselves named as defendants in such damage suits many years after the improvement was completed and occupied. Comparatively, modern architecture, engineering, and construction, with the new techniques, technology, and methods, may give the appearance of defective or unsafe conditions to older structures which conditions may be used as a basis for such damage suits. In such cases, the architectural plans used may have been discarded, copies of building codes in force at the time of design or construction may no longer be in existence, and the persons who were individually involved may have deceased or may not be located. The purpose of the law is to provide a reasonable time and opportunity for a person who has suffered injury or damages to bring an action. To permit the bringing of such actions without any limitation as to time places the defendant in an unreasonable position if not imposing the impossibility of asserting a reasonable defense. At hearings before your Committee, specific cases were mentioned to illustrate the need for the pending legislation. In one case an architectural firm designed an auditorium which was built in 1928. In 1965, a visitor to the auditorium fell on the stairway and was injured. Her allegation in a suit for damages against the owner was that her injury was due to the improper location of a handrail. The owner of the building, in turn, filed suit against the architect for alleged negligence in designing the stairway and handrail. Thus, 38 years after the completion of the construction the architectural firm is now defending itself against a $50,000 lawsuit. In another instance an engineering firm designed a grain elevator which was built in 1934. The elevator was destroyed by an explosion. in 1957. In 1959, the owner sued the engineer for $250,000 alleging that the explosion was due to errors in the design of the ventilation system. |