Structural Engineering Firms – Highest Claim Severity
Structural engineering firms occupy a unique position within the design and construction industry—highest in claim severity. In recent PL surveys - 82% rated structural as the highest risk discipline. When structural failures occur, the consequences are often catastrophic, major financial loss, high cost to repair, complex, multi-party litigation, and life safety concerns. Recent claim trends indicate that while claim frequency has remained relatively stable, severity continues to rise, driven by evolving project delivery methods, litigation dynamics, and environmental pressures.
Problematic States
A key factor shaping the current claims environment is geography. Certain states consistently generate a higher volume and severity of claims due to a combination of construction activity, regulatory environment, and exposure to natural hazards.
California leads the list - driven by seismic risk, aggressive plaintiff activity, and a high concentration of multifamily and condominium construction. Structural engineers are frequently drawn into litigation involving building movement, cracking, and water intrusion tied to design, detailing and construction defects.
Florida presents a similarly challenging environment, particularly for condominium projects. Water intrusion, building envelope failures, and hurricane-related damage are major drivers of claims. Coupled with a highly active plaintiff bar and statutory frameworks that encourage defect litigation, Florida remains one of the most difficult jurisdictions for design professionals.
Texas continues to see elevated claim activity due to rapid population growth and infrastructure expansion. The combination of expansive soils, variable geotechnical conditions, and fast-tracked construction schedules increases the likelihood of foundation movement and structural distress claims.
New York with its dense urban environment and complex high-rise construction, presents risks tied to coordination failures, vibration issues, and strict regulatory oversight.
Colorado has emerged as a growing area of concern, where soil movement, expansive clay conditions, and increased development activity are contributing to a rise in structural-related claims.
Project Types
Certain project types consistently drive claim activity;
Multifamily and condominium projects represent the highest frequency of claims, often tied to water intrusion and interface detailing issues at balconies, podium decks, and façade systems.
Infrastructure projects—including bridges, transportation systems, and utilities—generate fewer claims but carry extreme severity when failures occur. Commercial and institutional buildings, particularly those with complex structural and mechanical integration, are prone to coordination-related disputes and serviceability concerns such as excessive deflection or vibration.
Cause of Claims
Structural engineering claims remain remarkably consistent, reinforcing a critical point: most claims are preventable and tied to business practices rather than purely technical failures.
Design errors and omissions remain the leading claim caused by miscalculations, incomplete load paths, and incorrect assumptions. In many cases caused by a lack of effective QA/QC processes and assignment of inexperienced, inadequate staff.
Communication and coordination failures are rapidly increasing, particularly on complex projects where multiple disciplines rely heavily on digital models and compressed schedules.
Construction deviations also play a significant role, especially when contractors depart from design intent or fail to follow proper sequencing. These scenarios often evolve into shared liability disputes between contractors and engineers. Additionally, water intrusion and building envelope failures continue to generate a high volume of litigation, frequently linked to structural detailing gaps and movement-related issues.
Geotechnical uncertainty is another major contributor, particularly in regions with challenging soil conditions. Inadequate subsurface investigation or failure to properly account for soil behavior can lead to settlement, slope instability, and foundation failures. Finally, scope changes and communication breakdowns—often driven by schedule compression and project delivery pressures—introduce risk by forcing design decisions before full coordination is achieved.
Emerging Trends
Looking ahead, several emerging trends are likely to further shape the risk landscape. Claim severity is expected to continue increasing, with more frequent multi-million-dollar losses.
Social inflation, driven by larger jury awards and third-party litigation funding, is amplifying financial exposure. At the same time, reliance on technologies such as BIM and early-stage AI-assisted design introduces new liability considerations, particularly when tools are used without proper validation.
Climate change is also redefining structural risk. Engineers are increasingly expected to design for conditions that exceed historical norms, including higher wind loads, flood levels, and wildfire exposure. Failure to anticipate these evolving conditions may become a growing source of future claims.
Conclusion
The implications for structural engineering firms are clear - risk is not defined solely by technical competence—it is shaped by enterprise-wide practices, including project selection, staffing and assignments, contract discipline, coordination processes, project and client selection and quality control. Firms that proactively address these areas will be better positioned to manage claim severity, maintain insurability, and compete effectively in an increasingly complex professional liability market.
