Cost Administration Made Easy

Want to know which carrier owes what for a specific claim? Want to know which invoices have been submitted to the carries for payment? Want to know when the most recent payments came in and how much is in trust for each specific case?  If so, Vendor Cost Control ( VCC ) , our exciting and instant reporting tool, is for you!

 Reporting and Tracking is our business. Let us take the pile of bills off your desk, so you can focus your efforts on doing what you do best.

  [Read more...]

Will Green Building Practices Increase Construction Defect Litigation?

Green building has become America’s new fad. You can define green building as an outcome of a design which focuses on increasing the efficiency of resource use including energy, water, and materials–while reducing building impacts on human health and the environment during the building’s lifecycle, through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and removal. With federal government funding now available for construction companies to “go green” with their building materials, do you foresee this being the next big boom? Here’s where it gets a little tricky the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LEED has become the de facto green-building certification standard in the marketplace. Under the LEED system, a building can achieve a ranking of certified, silver, gold, or platinum based on the number of points earned. To gain points, certain design features must be incorporated into the project.

LEED proponents routinely advocate that the savings from energy bills promptly pay back those extra costs. The problem with this position is that it is unproven and, in some instances, highly-contested.

It will be interesting to see if these new green practices will increase construction defect litigation in that field. With President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) infusing hundreds of billions of dollars into new infrastructures including LEED projects and other high-efficiency energy projects construction companies “going green” have been on the rise.  According to a new study by McGraw-Hill Construction, 35 percent of architects, engineers, and contractors report having green jobs, which represents one-third of the industry. That share is expected to increase so that by 2014 green jobs will comprise 45 percent of all design and construction jobs.

The most notable case to date for green construction defect litigation was that of Steven Gidumal. v. Site 16/17 Development LLC. The owners of a $4.2 million condominium unit in the Riverhouse apartment building in New York City sued the building’s developer and manager for $1.5 million for damages related to a variety of alleged green-construction defects, for example, insufficient heat from the “energy efficient” HVAC system. The owners’ cause of action included breach of contract and fraud based on alleged misrepresentations in the condo offering plan about the building and the units. While this case was resolved out of court, it is a reminder that developers can face allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, or both when promoting a building’s LEED certification or performance expectations to prospective owners, tenants, or both.

More litigation can also spring up from the newly implemented International Code Council International Green Construction Code (IgCC) standard. This new standard represents a fundamental shift in the standard of construction, which traditionally emphasized health or structural provisions as opposed to green provisions. With the elevation of several enforced green construction codes including at least 55 percent of building materials must be salvaged, recycled content, recyclable, bio-based, or indigenous may lead to more lawsuits for architects, contractors, and developers.

Research shows that lawyers representing construction clients involved in green-building projects can mitigate the liability risk by clearly setting forth the rights, remedies, and responsibilities of parties in construction contract documents.

How do you see this affecting the construction and construction defect litigation industry?

Software As A Service With the Benefit of Ownership

Software as a service is generally touted as having no upfront costs, no return on investment worries as it is similar to leasing, 3 to 4 month rapid deployment, and easy exit in the event it doesn’t work.  It sounds like a win-win situation; the purchaser has very little risk.  The seller has more opportunity as the sales should be easier because of attractive marketing.  There are some additional benefits to being a STAKEHOLDER. Ongoing consistency, longevity of use, comfort, training, with the majority of benefits in the familiarity (A product you know) and synergy of incorporation of your business rules.

So how can we have both, because even with entry of ease, there is still substantial risk and an investment of time to deploy?  JDi’ s concept of pricing was always low upfront costs.  All upgrades, service and other related support activities are included in the monthly maintenance fee, priced substantially less than all the modules purchased separately.  The only upfront costs are a onetime deployment, and contrary to definition deployment is “actual set up” more so than deployment.  Of course there is always the possibility of the data import, which has to set outside the box since the data import requirement is always a business decision regarding the importance of historical information.

Depending on the system most upfront costs are several hundred thousand dollars, with a substantial maintenance fee behind that for upgrades, new modules and other related items.  Software as a service, which is closely related to leasing eliminates all those up fronts costs, stays competitive by offering enhancements required to comply with changing market place requirements, Offers upgrades based on technological advances in programming and has a reasonable monthly service fee.  Providing the vendor credibility is good, this is worthy of consideration.  This is actually an on demand relationship and forces vendor creativity to maintain competitiveness.  Further, the client is protected from this software becoming obsolete, no consideration for ROI and the potential for staying on the cutting edge if the claims manager software selection was a good one to start with.

Of course there are risks, which should be considered since software as a service is really in its infancy, which means it’s not mature, the learning curve is constantly changing, but the good news is there’s no lock into a long term legacy system that does not provide the desired result.  JDi recommends making the time investment and researching what might be available, as it is undoubtedly worth the effort.  The possibility exists that it will not be for you, but you’ll have the comfort level of knowing you are considering alternative business methodology giving your decision considerably more merit than following the pack.

As a prudent software vendor, every sales call is a consulting call with a true desire to help the client as well as benefit from the clients experiences and needs.  Contact and communication always rules which is why opportunity is a welcome challenge to learning.  The investment decision is, spend lots of money on advertising? or research and development, understanding the market place and speculative brainstorming with potential clients, all of which produce variable results.