Bruce's story about the "horizontal foundation" makes me think about
liability.  As an architect, I live in ungodly fear of liability for work I've
done, or even been vaguely associated with.  I don't believe that an architect
would have touched that man's house with a ten foot pole until the structural
problems were attended to.

Ever since Solomon (I believe - or was it Hammurabi?) decided that if a
building failed, the architect was to be executed -- we've been watching our
backs.  Do you GCs have to worry to the same extent?  It seems that in any law
suits responsibility all points back to the architect.  And it seems there is
no statute of limitation on our work (within reason).   As for the
afforementioned roof/foundation problem - it would likely be considered
malpractice on our part to continue to be involved with the building when
there was clearly structural failure.

The AIA B141 Contract states pretty clearly our position, but I would be
interested to hear your angle.

Anne Sullivan