David Hatem, PC, founding partner of Donovan Hatem LLP and Chair of the firm's Professional Practices Group discussed the various issues associated with design responsibility in IPD. Integrated Project Delivery is generating a significant amount of interest and sense of promise among design professionals, owners, and constructors. However, design responsibility and the associated contractually-prescribed and defined risk sharing for the economic consequences of defective design continues to be an issue in the context of developing, and negotiating, agreements for IPD projects.

The three principal areas of concern for design responsibility in IPD -- public law, private law/contractual risk allocation, insurance coverage -- are interrelated and critically important. One of the more important issues is whether or not the collaborative design component of IPD should extend to a collective final project design responsibility, beyond the design professional (and its engineering consultants). Closely related to this issue is whether or not the professional liability insurance industry will, or should, develop "wrap-up" coverage for design risk exposures for all project participants who collaborate to develop and finalize design.

Design responsibility and professional liability insurance coverage in IPD are not only complex issues, but are frontier in nature. Does the past provide guidance in the quest to resolve design responsibility and related insurance issues? The key to successfully addressing each in IPD is a sequential, integrated, and consistent approach.