LightSquared not such a bright idea

Written by Coalition to Save Our GPS    
Thursday, 27 October 2011

Misstatements hide $10 billion spectrum windfall at expense of taxpayers; LightSquared shirks its responsibility for the billions its plans would cost governments and consumers

Summary: LightSquared repeatedly misstates and rewrites history in order to try to push through its ill-conceived plan to repurpose mobile satellite spectrum (MSS) to build a nationwide terrestrial network. It’s using legal double speak to hide a $10 billion spectrum windfall  – money that should be going to U.S. taxpayers. And, it’s offering up just a pittance towards the billions it would cost federal, state and local governments, as well as consumers, if its plans are allowed to go forward.

LightSquared’s Attempts to Rewrite History: LightSquared has time and again repeated its self-serving claim that it has been authorized for years to build its recently proposed nationwide terrestrial network, and that this alleged prior authorization shifts the burden of avoiding interference to GPS manufacturers and users.  One of many examples is this August 2011, LightSquared statement:

“The public record shows that the Commission first approved rules allowing terrestrial operations in the L-band in 2003. LightSquared received its authorization to conduct terrestrial operations in 2004. LightSquared has had the legal right to build the network it is building today – with the same number of towers and power levels – since 2005. The interference at issue today arises because of sensitivity of GPS receivers to LightSquared’s base stations, operating at the power level authorized in 2005.”

LightSquared’s assertion is flat out wrong. It completely ignores clear statements in prior FCC decisions and rules. In fact:

• LightSquared has never had the legal right to build a nationwide terrestrial network in the satellite MSS band.

• If the FCC had granted rights to use this spectrum for nationwide, terrestrial-only wireless services, it would have been required by law to auction those rights to the highest bidder.

What LightSquared is really trying to do here is rewrite history so that it receives a massive increase in the value of its spectrum over what it paid for it and shift the costs of eliminating interference to GPS users, including federal, state and local governments, and GPS manufacturers.

The Real FCC History and Facts:

• Prior FCC decisions – including the ones that LightSquared seeks to rely on for its claim of “legal right” – made absolutely clear that MSS licenses could not offer the kind of stand-alone terrestrial services that LightSquared has now proposed and the FCC’s International Bureau (IB) conditionally approved.   As early as 2003, the FCC stated categorically that “[w]e do not intend, nor will we permit, the terrestrial component to become a stand-alone service.”[i]

• MSS licensees in the L-band, including LightSquared, have long been on full notice that the FCC would take further action to protect GPS if interference issues arose.  In the same 2005 order that LightSquared says approved its plans, the FCC committed to take actions necessary to “ensure that all FCC services provide adequate protection to GPS.”[ii]  Given this commitment and the clear language of the FCC’s rules, LightSquared could not reasonably rely on these decisions as authorizing nationwide terrestrial use and a shift of the burden of interference to GPS users.

• As recently as the 2010 National Broadband Plan, the FCC reiterated the limited nature of permitted terrestrial operations in the MSS spectrum – these only included operations to fill-in the satellite service footprint.  The FCC explained that “[t]he ATC [ancillary terrestrial component] rules allow MSS providers to deploy terrestrial networks to enhance coverage in areas where the satellite signal is attenuated or unavailable” and that “MSS licensees must integrate MSS and ATC services, including, notably, a requirement that all ATC handsets must have a satellite communications capability.”[iii]

• When the FCC’s IB conditionally permitted LightSquared to provide stand-alone terrestrial services in January 2011, it rejected LightSquared’s claim that it already had the authority to do so.  Instead, the IB waived the “integrate MSS and ATC services” rules in order to grant LightSquared’s conditional approval.

• The International Bureau’s January 2011 conditional order, by waiving restrictions on terrestrial use of the MSS band, also exposed GPS users to massive interference.

• LightSquared has repeatedly claimed that the January 2011 waiver decision had “nothing to do with interference.”  But nothing could be further from the truth.

• By requiring an MSS licensee to integrate any terrestrial offering with its satellite service, the ATC rules effectively require the licensee to operate the terrestrial component in a manner that does not interfere with the satellite component.  This “self-correcting” mechanism provided strong protections to GPS satellite services in the adjacent spectrum.  This is why NTIA told the FCC in January 2011 that LightSquared’s November 2010 proposal, which for the first time proposed terrestrial-only services and use of terrestrial-only handsets, presented a “new interference environment” for GPS.[iv]  The FCC’s January 2011 waiver order removed these practical protections, but still required that LightSquared demonstrate non-interference to GPS.

• LightSquared’s license was – and remains – subject to a general FCC rule that MSS terrestrial operations are not permitted to cause interference to other services, including GPS, and that LightSquared is obligated to cure any such interference.[v]  LightSquared’s contention that GPS users are somehow responsible for mitigating the interference that LightSquared would create is false.  It has no legal right to commence interfering operations or shift the burden of curing interference to GPS users.

Massive Spectrum Giveaway: There are many motivations for LightSquared to seek to rewrite history. One of the less obvious reasons is that if its rewrite of history is accepted as fact and its plans go forward, LightSquared would receive a massive $10 billion increase in the value of its spectrum.

• Because of these restrictions limiting terrestrial use, the value of the MSS spectrum held by LightSquared’s predecessor was much lower than the value of other spectrum – such as Advanced Wireless Service spectrum – in which ubiquitous, terrestrial-only   use was permitted.

• The FCC’s National Broadband Plan recognized that granting terrestrial authority would “step up” spectrum values. And LightSquared’s own consultants, the Brattle Group, this year estimated that LightSquared’s mobile satellite spectrum is worth $12 billion if it could be used for unrestricted terrestrial mobile broadband use, but only $2 billion if limited to satellite uses.[vi]

• LightSquared said that it paid approximately $2 billion for its MSS spectrum rights.  So, all sophisticated market participants understood that LightSquared was not authorized to use the MSS spectrum for nationwide terrestrial use in 2005 or even 2010, when Harbinger Capital Partners, which controls LightSquared, bought out the company’s predecessor.

• If allowed to go forward, LightSquared gets to pocket the $10 billion increase in spectrum value that would result.  Again, it’s important to note that the FCC relied on the extensive restrictions on MSS described in the above “The Real FCC History and Facts” to avoid auctioning terrestrial rights when it authorized “ancillary terrestrial” operations in this spectrum in 2003.[vii]

• LightSquared should not be allowed to use this legal double speak to enjoy massive unjust enrichment while harming GPS users.

Drain on U.S. Treasury: The massive replacement costs for federal government GPS equipment and systems that would be caused by LightSquared’s plans would create a major drain on the U.S. Treasury.  LightSquared is shirking its financial responsibilities, relying on its bogus claim of “legal rights” to terrestrial use to argue that GPS users and manufacturers should pay the bill for eliminating interference.

• LightSquared admits that even under its latest revised plans, hundreds of thousands of high precision GPS receivers used by government and private users would suffer interference.  But it has offered only a pittance, $50 million, to replace or retrofit affected equipment.   And, it is yet to be proven that LightSquared will not also interfere with hundreds of millions of consumer GPS devices, which is why NTIA and the FCC recently called for more testing.

• The head of the Air Force Space Command, Gen. William Shelton, testified at a September 15, 2011 House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing that it would be safe to say that if LightSquared is allowed to proceed with its plans the cost just to the Department of Defense to address interference from the LightSquared network “would be in the b’s – billions of dollars.”

• Add to that the cost of replacing many more billions worth of GPS equipment owned by other federal, state and local government users, as well as businesses, farmers and consumers that would be harmed by LightSquared’s plans.

Massive Federal Government Costs: The costs of replacing GPS in federal government uses could be in the range of $245 billion if LightSquared’s plans go forward, a sampling of department and agency impact assessments shows. And that figure does not include any estimates from heavy government users of GPS such as the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture and Energy.

The documents paint a vivid picture of how widespread and engrained the use of GPS, particularly high-precision GPS, is in the federal government and lends insight into the massive nature of the potential costs and disruptions of critical federal government services.  Excerpts of the impact assessments and testimony about the cost of replacing GPS devices and infrastructure in the federal government are available at the Coalition’s website here.

Bottom Line:  All in all, LightSquared’s proposal represents a new low in financial engineering at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.  Never before has a single company tried to gain so much from our national spectrum resources and pay so little for the collateral damage caused by its plans.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[i]         Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 1962, ¶1 (2003).

[ii]        Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4616, ¶ 70 (2005).           

[iii]       National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8.4., p. 87.

[iv]       Letter from Lawrence Strickling, NTIA, to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, January 12, 2011, at 1.

[v]        Section 25.255 of the Commission’s rules states that: “[i]f harmful interference is caused to other services by ancillary MSS ATC operations, either from ATC base stations or mobile terminals, the MSS ATC operator must resolve any such interference.”

[vi]       Brattle Group Report, June 22, 2011, pp. 1 n. 2, 8-9.

[vii]      Letter from Trimble Navigation Limited to Strategic Forces Subcommittee, House Armed Services Committee, October 6, 2011, p. 13, fn 38.

Congratulations to Joshua Tatman, PLS 8858

From left: Greg Sebourn, Board Pres. Brian Conley, Joshua

Tatman, and Santiago Canyon College Pres. Dr. Juan

Vazquez, Ph.D.

Joshua Tatman, 23, of Lake Forest is one of the youngest licensed professional land surveyors to ever earn his license.

PLS 8858 (that's his state license number) was honored by the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board of Trustees at last night's Board meeting.  Josh is one of our Instructional Assistant at Santiago Canyon College where he acts as mentor, lab tech, and tutor for the nearly 200 land surveying students that attend classes each year. 

Josh is also a surveyor at OC Survey (a.k.a. the Orange County Surveyor's Office) where he works on boundary projects. 

Josh has earned several land surveying certificates from Santiago Canyon College and hopes to continue his education at Cal State Fullerton and earn a business degree.  Josh also hopes to become a Certified Federal Surveyor, or CFedS.

Congratulations to Joshua Tatman, PLS 8858!!!!

Caltrans Surveyor Receives Medal of Valor

Thanks to Ryan Versteeg, PLS for bringing this to my attention!
(http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?nid=44332)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY - Caltrans District 5 Surveyor Robert "Bob" MacKenzie has received the Governor's Gold Medal of Valor for his heroic actions on Hwy. 88 near Kirkwood, CA on the morning of Nov. 30, 2009. The medal was presented by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at a statewide ceremony in Sacramento on Dec. 7.

MacKenzie and his wife, who live in Los Osos observed a man waiving his arms stating that a car had just crashed over the embankment. MacKenzie went over the guardrail and proceeded 75 to 100 feet down a slippery, snow covered, rocky mountainside.

He found an elderly man standing next to an overturned station wagon with his wife trapped in the front seat of the car with one of her arms pinned under the right front windshield. He was wearing shorts and tennis shoes and standing in about a foot of snow. MacKenzie found a rubber mat which was thrown from the car and placed it on the snow allowing the man to stand on it in order to prevent hypothermia and/or frostbite.

MacKenzie returned to the woman and covered her hand with a snow boot he found in the car while trying to keep her comfortable and treating her for shock. He covered the woman with his jacket and stayed with her for the next 20 minutes in freezing temperatures until rescuers reached the scene.

MacKenzie described to rescuers how the woman was trapped which allowed them to make a single trip down the steep embankment with the proper tools and first aid supplies. MacKenzie remained at the scene alongside emergency personnel during the entire extraction which took approximately 3 hours.

The woman was removed from the vehicle and taken by air to a hospital in Reno, NV. Because of weight restrictions, her husband could not accompany his wife to the hospital.

MacKenzie offered to drive her husband to the hospital, a two hour trip which was made in the opposite direction that Mackenzie and his wife were traveling.

The actions by MacKenzie during this incident were over and above the call of duty and were directly responsible for preventing further injury or death.

"The State of California is proud of the actions of Caltrans District 5 employee Robert "Bob" MacKenzie for his extraordinary act of service above and beyond the normal call of duty or service. He is a deserving recipient of the Governor's Gold Medal of Valor," said Caltrans District 5 Director Rich Krumholz.

The Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyor's Asnwers some Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions about Land Surveying Laws


Q: I’m only going to charge my new client $500 to survey his property. Do I really need to use a written contract?


A: Yes. Unless you are going to do the work for free, the law requires land surveyors to execute a written contract with their clients before beginning work on a project. See Business and Professions Code section 8759 for additional information.


Q: I performed a field survey, found a material discrepancy, and set monuments with my tag on them. Now my client refuses to pay me. Do I still have to file a Record of Survey?


A: Yes. There are no provisions in the law exempting you from having to file a Record of Survey if your client refuses to pay. Your only recourse is to seek private legal counsel regarding remedies available to you through the civil court system to collect any fees that may be owed to you by your client. See Business and Professions Code section 8762 for additional information.


Frequently Asked Questions about Professional Engineering Laws


Q: I heard there is a new law that says I don’t have to put my expiration date on my plans, but my boss is making me include that information. What is required?


A: While the law does not require you to include your expiration date, it does not prohibit it. See Business and Professions Code sections 6735, 6735.3, 6735.4, and 8761 for additional information.


Q: Can a licensed civil engineer prepare a soils or geotechnical report?


A: Yes. Geotechnical, or soils, engineering, as defined in Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 404(ee), is part of the practice of civil engineering, which is defined in Business and Professions Code section 6731. There¬fore, anyone licensed as a civil engineer has the legal authority to practice geotechnical engineering and to prepare geotechnical reports without also being licensed as a geotechnical engineer as long as the licensed civil engineer is by education and/or experience fully competent and proficient in geotechnical engineering, as required by Title 16, California Code of Regulations section 415.


Q. Can a local agency require that a soils report be prepared and signed by a geotechnical engineer rather than a civil engineer?


A. No. The preparation and subsequent signing of a soils report is part of the practice of civil engineering. Therefore, a civil engineer is legally authorized to prepare soils reports. Business and Professions Code section 460 prohibits local agencies from prohibiting a licensee from performing work that he or she is legally authorized to perform.


Q: Can a civil engineer offer and/or practice mechanical and electrical engineering?


A: Yes. A civil engineer can offer and practice mechanical and electrical engineering as long as it is supplementary to the civil engineering work.


Q: Is it legal for another engineer to make changes to plans I prepared and then submit the modified plans to the city?


A: According to Board Rule 404.1(d), this is permitted as long as the other professional engineer exercises the requisite extent of control and assumes responsibility for the engineering decisions as required by Board Rule 404.1(a) and meets the criteria described in Board Rule 404.1(b) as well as the requirements of the Professional Engineers Act and Board Rules 411 and 415. The profes¬sional engineer need only be in responsible charge of the portions, additions, or modifications, or the portion of the project affected by the addition or modification, and not of the entire project. Except as provided in sections 6735(b), 6735.3(b), and 6735.4(b) of the Code, the original licensee is not relieved of any responsibility arising from the engineering services of which he or she was in responsible charge.


Q: If I am a civil, electrical, or mechanical engineer operating an engineering business with a partner who is unlicensed, can my partner solicit work, send out proposals, and sign contracts on behalf of the business?


A: No. It is a misdemeanor (and in some cases a felony) violation pursuant to B&P Code section 6787(a) for any person who is not licensed to practice or offer to practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering. In addition, this could result in a violation on behalf of the licensee for aiding and abetting the unlicensed practice of civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering.


Q: Since I am an Engineer-in-Training who knows a civil engineer willing to work on projects, can I advertise and contract for engineering projects as long as the civil engineer stamps and signs all of the work?


A: No. It is a misdemeanor (and in some cases a felony) violation pursuant to B&P Code section 6787(a) for any person who is not licensed to practice or offer to practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering. In addition, when operating an engineering business, all requirements described in B&P Code section 6738 must be met. If the require¬ments are not met, the licensee could be considered to be aiding and abetting in the unlicensed practice, or offering to practice, civil engineering.


Q: Can a civil engineer offer and practice structural engineering?


A: Yes. Civil engineering embraces structural engineering; therefore, a civil engineer may offer and practice structural engineering. However, a civil engineer may only use the title “Structural Engineer” if he or she has obtained the second license as a Structural Engineer.

There are also some great articles in the Board's Bulletin.  Click here to read all of them.

Prejudice and Fear Mongering Alive and Well in Education

Dr. Dave Gibson wrote an article in American Surveyor regarding "professionalism" and the educational component.  First, let me set the context of Gibson's perspective.  He is the Founding Surveying and Mapping Program Director at the University of Florida.  What might come of his job if enrollment were to fall?  Just to be fair, I am the Surveying/Mapping Science Program Facilitator (we don't have directors) at Santiago Canyon College in Orange, California.  So, it is safe to say, I have at least a part-time job riding on the success of my program's enrollment.

Back to his article.  Gibson begins with:

The image of land surveying as a technician/trade image is increasingly growing. I make a case for moving away from the apprenticeship system toward an educational standard.

It seems those of us attempting to recruit new life have succeeded in our public awareness campaigns, at least to some degree.  But why does he want to move away from the traditional career path to the exclusivity of a formal education?  I think I already answered that, but let's look further into Gibson's argument.

Dr. Gibson brings up again (I wrote about this HERE) a Florida Supreme Court ruling regarding the statute of limitations for certain professions.  As noted in my previous post, Gibson is trying to have us believe that a four-year degree is the defining standard of a profession simply because a state supreme court created a definition that was consistent with Florida statutes for the singular purpose of determining the statute of limitations.  With that logic, only those with 4-year degrees are professional artists.  And as a point of humor, even the following university majors are professionals: American Studies, Business Administration, Communications, and Reading.  Further, most of those that the rest of us consider to be professional athletes, are, by Gibson's definition, not professionals at all.  I have yet to find a university with a degree in boxing, but I digress. 

From my previous post on Gibson's assertions regarding the Florida case, I wrote:

If education were a pyramid, kindergarten (funny we have never adopted the English term – “child garden”) through the 8th grade would be the bottom. That base creates a good, wide, solid foundation from which a person can grow intellectually. High school is a bit further up – not the top, but getting there. Mixed in is experience. Experience refines the basis into a pointed, focused body of knowledge. Depending on a person’s personality, means, and life choices, he or she might choose no college, trade school, some college, a university, or any combination of advanced education which will surely be supplemented by quality experiences from various sources and activities. Does the lack of a conferred degree detract from their professionalism? I think not.

Dr. Gibson goes on in his latest article to say:

A true learned professional must understand the mathematical, scientific, legal, environmental and societal framework within which the work takes place, speak confidently, write authoritatively, research published information and analyze related issues, skills that are beyond the realm of most "on the job" training or apprenticeship programs.

I agree with the opinion that the list of skills he gives are generally beyond the scope of on-the-job-training.  However, several of the skills such as math, science, speech, and writing can and should be mastered in high school.  What is not mastered in high school can easily be found and learned in a community college.  The list of skills given do not lend themselves exclusively to institutions of higher learning.  With that understanding, the land surveying student/apprentice needs to seek out source of information for the fringe elements of our profession that are not necessarily part of their day-to-day practice but will need to have some level of understanding for licensing exams.  One example is photogrammetry, which in California, is not regulated except in that the subject is part of the state-specific examination. 

Apparently, dazzling students with brilliance takes a back seat to baffling them with bullshit (sorry Mom).  Gibson says the words land surveyor conjures up the wrong image to high school students because they have a preconceived notion as to what a land surveyor is.  Instead, Gibson prefers "geomatics engineer."  A rose by any other name is still a rose and a turd by any other name still stinks.

The real problem Dr. Gibson has seems to be the ignorant and uneducated technicians of Florida.  Yes, California has its share of unqualified technicians who will soon be out of a job, but whether or not all 50 states adopt a mandatory 4-year degree requirement for licensure will not change those status or quality of technicians.  You will always have a need for a field technician who does not command the same salary structure as the licensed professional.  Gibson digs his heels in on this issue:

Firms have been forced to start drug-testing policies for their employees hired off the street, etc. Many of our current professional leaders (owners of leadership firms, chapter/society leaders, Board members, national society leaders) were trained by apprenticeship 30/40/50 years ago. They naturally think, "If I did it, someone else can." We all know and respect many professionals who did not go to college. But the 99 non-diamonds will determine the reputation, image, and future professional standing of surveying, not the one diamond.

I do not have a 4-year degree in land surveying but did attend all of the community college courses I could enroll in before taking and passing the California professional land surveying exams at age 34.  In fact, the vast majority of the California licensed professional land surveyors I have met gained licensure via the same path as I.  And so, yes, I would agree that "if I did it, so can someone else." 

Gibson goes on to talk about peoples' narrow "comfort zone":

An apprenticed surveyor who learned on the job may have a narrow "comfort zone" of practice--only doing those things in the manner they were taught. Such a person may be extremely uncomfortable in today's surveying world of new methods, new applications, and new tools, preferring to offer traditional services with traditional methods. When the profession in general is slow to react and embrace new technologies such as aerial mapping, GIS, etc., the door opens for competing groups to enter the field of surveying and mapping.

His first sentence takes a GIANT leap in assumptions.  Surely he doesn't actually believe that educated people have a broad comfort zone over uneducated people.  Surely, he is not THAT prejudice.  In California, we address Gibson's concern over a licensees "comfort zone" by codifying in state law that licensees may only practice in their area of competence.  To do otherwise is negligent and reckless. As to his last sentence, is he referring to civil engineers playing surveyor?   

As a final though to Dr. Gibson's article, he is not completely off base, though I think he is grasping at straws.  As professionals, we do need to promote education whenever and wherever we can.  However, we should not use fear mongering and personal prejudice in order to elevate our profession.  Lead by example.

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010. His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon. They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE****

This showed up in my email this morning. After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible. Read it and pass it along where you can.

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision - SB 972

****UPDATE****
I met with Ca. Assemblyman Chris Norby's staff at his district office last Friday, June 11, 2010.  His staff indicated that SB 972 looked like it would be on the Governor's desk very soon.  They didn't see any reason why it would be stalled any further.
****UPDATE**** 


This showed up in my email this morning.  After reading the background on this, I see the need to get this passed as quickly as possible.  Read it and pass it along where you can. 

###

TAKE ACTION - SUPPORT ACEC LEGISLATION - DUTY TO DEFEND OBLIGATIONS FOR DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Take Action!

ACEC CA Sponsored Legislation Related to the Crawford Supreme Court "Duty To Defend" Decision

ACEC sponsored SB 972 responds to the Supreme Court's ruling in Crawford and an Appeals Court's ruling in UDC. These terrible rulings can force design professionals to pay an indemnitee's attorney fees even when a firm was neither negligent nor in breach of contract. Moreover, in the UDC case the court ruled that the engineering firm had a duty to defend the indemnitee, even though the plaintiff did not even allege that the engineering firm was negligent.

It is literally impossible for a design professional firms to obtain insurance to cover other's attorney fees in these circumstances. These cases force companies to literally "bet the firm" every time a contract signed. That is terrible for business and job growth and frankly is just not right.

SB 972 is important and urgently needed. Already in response to these court rulings, design professional firms are increasingly confronted with onerous and uninsurable indemnity demands in contracts and tenders for the defense of lawsuits not involving allegations of professional negligence. Relief, as envisioned by SB 972, is critical.

PLEASE TAKE ACTION TODAY!! SEND THIS EMAIL TO OTHERS SO THEY CAN TAKE ACTION TOO!!

Thanks,
Mark Smith
ACEC CA Legislative Advocate
916-335-5072