A letter arrived at the offices of a mid-sized engineering and technology consulting firm in Calgary, alleging that design specifications the firm had prepared for a commercial client's automated warehouse system contained fundamental errors that caused the system to malfunction during integration, resulting in significant business interruption losses and the cost of remedial work. The firm, which had operated for 12 years providing engineering design, systems integration consulting, and technology implementation services to industrial clients across western Canada, immediately recognized the letter as a potential claim against its professional services.
The consulting firm employed 18 professionals, including licensed professional engineers, certified technology consultants, and project managers who together delivered complex technical solutions to clients in manufacturing, logistics, and energy sectors. The project at issue involved a 14-month engagement during which the firm provided detailed design specifications, integration protocols, and implementation oversight for a client seeking to automate a 45,000 square foot distribution facility. The firm's scope of work encompassed both engineering design services traditionally covered under professional liability policies and technology consulting services that fall within the errors and omissions coverage space.
The firm maintained professional liability insurance structured on a claims-made basis, with the current policy having been in force for 3 years following a transition from a previous insurer. The policy contained a retroactive date that predated the commencement of work on the project by approximately 8 months, placing the initial design services within the covered period. The policy's definition of wrongful act encompassed negligent acts, errors, and omissions in the rendering of professional services, though the precise scope of that definition as applied to hybrid engineering and technology consulting work presented questions that would require careful analysis.
The client's letter detailed losses exceeding $800,000, comprising costs to diagnose the system failures, engage replacement consultants, implement corrective measures, and compensate for 6 weeks of reduced operational capacity during the remediation period. The letter did not yet constitute formal litigation but clearly signaled an intention to pursue recovery. The firm's principal reviewed the project file and discovered that documentation of key design decisions was less comprehensive than the firm's internal protocols required, with several critical specification changes having been communicated verbally during site meetings rather than confirmed in writing. The firm had not yet reported the matter to its insurer and faced immediate decisions about notification timing, response strategy, and the preservation of its coverage position.