It would not be ethical for Engineer A to continue to require a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services. Engineer A should tailor the indemnification agreement to accept reasonable liability and consider current availability of professional liability insurance as appropriate to the project.

A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind. Engineers, through the enactment of engineering licensing laws and other legal restrictions, are granted the authority to practice their profession to the exclusion of others. As a result of this grant of authority, the law expects licensed engineers as they do other professions to perform professional services in a non-negligent manner. In addition, as with other professions, engineers are also expected to be personally liable for their acts, errors or omissions in the performance of their professional services. The Board has not reviewed Section III.9. of the Code with great frequency. In BER Case 86-4, the Board considered a case involving the modification of signed and sealed plans by other than the responsible engineer. In reviewing the case, the Board cited Section III.9. of the Code and expressed concern that the engineer in that case failed to acknowledge responsibility for the full design by notations on the drawings. The Board indicated that this failure suggested a lack of recognition on the part of the engineer that his modifications in the design might have an impact on the efficacy and integrity of the entire project design. For that reason, we found the engineer unethical in that case. However, BER Case 86-4 was rendered before a significant change was made to Section III.9. of the Code. Soon after BER Case 86-4 was issued, the Board of Ethical Review proposed an addition to Code Section III.9. which was adopted by the NSPE Board of Directors. That addition made the following revision (addition underlined): "III.9. Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional activities; provided, howeve...

Engineer A, a civil engineer, requires a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services. Under the agreement, the client is required to "indemnify and hold harmless Engineer A for any damages or legal costs (including attorneys fees) arising from Engineer A's negligence in the performance of pollution-related services." Engineer A had inserted the indemnification provision during the early 1980's at the time of the "liability crisis" because of the unavailability of pollution-related insurance coverage. In recent years, the insurance industry has re-entered the pollution insurance market and now provides limited pollution coverage for an additional premium.

Would it be ethical for Engineer A to continue to require a broad indemnification provision in all of his agreements where he provides pollution-related services?