Certification language is one of the more subtle—but persistent—drivers of professional liability exposure. These statements are often made in the ordinary course of a project, whether in support of payment applications, lender requests, project closeout, or occupancy milestones. At the time, they rarely feel significant.
The challenge is not necessarily what is intended when the certification is signed. It is how that language may be interpreted years later if a dispute arises.
When Words Take on a Different Meaning
Phrases such as “in compliance,” “free from defect,” or “in accordance with all requirements” are often intended to express a professional opinion based on the information available at a specific point in time. However, in litigation, those same statements are frequently characterized as absolute assurances that the work achieved a guaranteed result.
That distinction is critical.
Professional liability insurance is designed to respond to claims arising from negligence—that is, allegations that a design professional failed to meet the applicable standard of care. It is not intended to insure guarantees of performance or contractual obligations that exceed that standard. When certification language crosses into warranty or guarantee territory, it can create exposure that was never intended or priced into the risk.
Many professional liability policies also contain a contractual liability exclusion similar to the following:
The policy does not apply to any claim based on or arising out of liability assumed by any insured under any contract or agreement unless such liability would have attached to an insured even in the absence of that contract or agreement.
In other words, assuming obligations beyond those imposed by professional negligence may place those obligations outside the scope of insurance coverage.
A Real-World Claim
We recently handled a claim involving a structural engineer who routinely provided certifications in support of construction progress payments. The certification stated that the work was “in compliance with the contract documents.”
After project completion, structural issues emerged due to installation deficiencies. Although the underlying problem was related to construction, the certification language became a focal point of the claim.
The alleged damages included:
- Costs to investigate the structural condition
- Corrective structural repairs
- Removal and replacement of affected work
- Schedule delay costs
- Additional consultant and contractor expenses associated with remediation
The claimant argued that the engineer’s certification effectively guaranteed the contractor’s work. While the engineer had limited involvement in the underlying construction deficiencies, the certification language significantly complicated the defense. The engineer ultimately incurred substantial legal defense costs before the matter was resolved through mediation.
The case serves as an important reminder that even routine certifications can become central evidence in a professional liability claim.
A Safer Approach
When certifications are required, the goal is not to avoid providing them altogether. On many projects, certifications are unavoidable. Instead, design professionals should strive to ensure the language reflects a professional opinion—not a guarantee.
Where appropriate, certifications should:
- Be based on the professional’s knowledge, information, and belief.
- Reflect the limited scope of the professional’s services.
- Reference observations made during site visits rather than continuous inspection.
- Acknowledge reliance on information provided by owners, contractors, and other consultants where appropriate.
- Remain consistent with the applicable professional standard of care.
This approach helps preserve the distinction between professional judgment and responsibility for construction means, methods, sequencing, workmanship, or contractor performance.
Language That Deserves Extra Attention
Before signing any certification, carefully review language that includes statements such as:
- “The work is complete.”
- “The work is correct.”
- “The work is free from defect.”
- “The work complies with all applicable laws, codes, and regulations” without appropriate qualification.
- Certifications of contractor performance or construction quality.
- Statements eliminating reliance on information supplied by the owner, contractor, or other consultants.
- Certifications tied to payment, substantial completion, occupancy, or lender funding that lack clear limitations.
These provisions often appear in lender forms or owner-generated documents rather than standard design agreements, making careful review especially important.
Practical Risk Management Tips
Before signing any certification:
- Use qualified language such as “to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief.”
- Avoid certifying matters outside your control, particularly construction quality or field conditions.
- Review lender and owner forms carefully for expanded certification obligations.
- Confirm that certification language aligns with your actual role and scope of services.
- Revise overly broad language whenever possible so it accurately reflects whatCertification language is easy to overlook because it often appears routine. Yet these statements are frequently revisited you can reasonably observe, evaluate, and control.
The Bottom Line
Certification language is easy to overlook because it often appears routine. Yet these statements are frequently revisited when claims arise, and seemingly harmless wording can be used to argue that a design professional assumed responsibilities well beyond the professional standard of care.
Taking a few extra moments to review certification language before signing can make a meaningful difference. Keeping certifications grounded in professional judgment—not guarantees—helps manage risk, preserves the intended allocation of responsibility, and reduces the likelihood that a routine project document becomes a costly issue years later.
For additional information please click HERE.