We are trying to move forward post Harvey and have met with a handful of architects regarding new construction, each of whom has sent a proposal with the same two irritating terms. I am particularly interested in hearing from architects on whether I'm looking at take it or leave it, or there might be room for negotiation on these issues.
(1) All proposals reserve plan ownership/copyright to the architect, subjecting me to liability for any use of the plan other than building my house at the specified location, and granting the architect unlimited rights and use. I get that this is intended to protect the architect, but I am paying dearly for the plan, which is supposed to reflect my vision. Why should the architect then have the ability to sell or license the design to others? Is it unreasonable to request a prohibition on the architect using my plan for anything other than advertising or marketing without my consent?
(2) All proposals limit the architect's liability to the amount I pay the architect. Most state the architect will carry at least $X in E&O coverage, but that doesn't apply to me if I've agreed to limit damages to the amount I paid to the architect. Some even attempt to shift responsibility to me for third-party claims. Why the limitation if the architect has insurance? Do architect's E&O policies typically have an exclusion or coverage limitation for claims by the client/homeowner? If not, is it unreasonable to expect to have full benefit of the E&O policy if something goes wrong?