91ÊÓƵ

In its most recent session, the Oregon Legislature passed two of three bills introduced to update statutes governing the practice of architecture in Oregon. Both bills that passed become effective Jan. 1, 2014.

The first, House Bill 2268, was developed with input from both the Oregon Board of Architect Examiners and American Institute of Architects-Oregon. It makes a number of clarifying amendments to the statutes governing architects and architectural firms.

Some wording changes simply bring the statutes in line with the current language used in the practice today and make the wording consistent with other statutes and codes. These changes include use of the term “registered” rather than “licensed” for people practicing architecture. Also, the term “drawings” was exchanged for “plans.” Neither change makes a substantive change in the operation of the law.

One significant change is the replacement of the word “supervise” with “observe” to describe the purpose of an architect’s site visits during construction. This change not only conforms to the terminology used in the standard AIA architectural service contract forms, but also corrects the misconception that an architect is responsible for inspecting the work of the general and subcontractors during construction.

As the AIA contract forms provide, the architect’s duty is only to periodically observe the construction for general conformance with the design documents. It is not the architect’s job to undertake detailed inspections and give direction to the contractors on how to practice their trades.

This has been an area of much concern for architects, especially in construction defect litigation. Plaintiffs have used the reference to “supervision” in the statute, and the corresponding Board of Architect Examiners’ regulations, to expand an architect’s liability to include failure to inspect and correct contractor errors when the contractor fails to follow the architect’s drawings and specifications.

The revisions in HB 2268 also remove the specific timetable for registration renewals. Thus, the Board of Architect Examiners can set the time periods for renewal by regulation and allow more flexible renewal dates and time periods. The changes allow the board to adopt multiyear registrations and set registration timetables other than on a strict, calendar year basis.

The revisions also specifically require, by statute, the separate registration of architectural firms. Previously, the firm registration requirement was imposed only by board rule.

The second bill, Senate Bill 46, corrects an oversight from the previous legislative session that shortened the statute of ultimate repose for lawsuits against contractors of large commercial structures, other than condominiums, from 10 years to six years, but left the 10-year statute in place for design professionals.

SB 46 amends ORS 12.135(3)(a) and makes the statute of ultimate repose six years for design professionals of large commercial structures, other than condominiums. It’s the same statute of ultimate repose as the one for contractors.

A bill that did not make it out of committee this session, Senate Bill 480, would have modified the expert witness certification requirement for design defect lawsuits. As the law now provides, a lawsuit cannot be filed against a design professional for design defects unless the complaint is accompanied by a certification that an expert is ready and willing to testify that there has been a violation of the professional standard of care.

The proposed amendment would add additional requirements that the expert be both licensed in Oregon and be of the same design discipline – such as architect, civil engineer, electrical engineer or the like – as the professional against whom the claim is made. We will need to wait and see whether this bill comes up again next session.

Bill Ohle is an attorney in the Portland office of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, and represents business and design professionals in the construction industry. Contact him at 503-796-2414 or [email protected].