Clarifying Engineer of Record and Insurance Consultant Responsibilities

To view the figures and tables associated with this article, please refer to the flipbook above.

Practicing structural engineers working in the rehabilitation and restoration of existing buildings frequently encounter disagreements regarding the scope of required repairs. These disagreements most often arise between the Engineer of Record (EOR) responsible for design and permitting, and consulting engineers retained by insurance carriers whose scope is typically tied to damage evaluation and policy thresholds. While both roles are essential, differing interpretations of the Existing Building Codes (EBCs) can create tension, particularly when life-safety concerns intersect with insurance-driven repair limits.

To better understand these role distinctions and code interpretations, a series of targeted questions were posed using ChatGPT. The resulting dialogue highlighted important structural, regulatory, and ethical distinctions not always clearly articulated in existing code language. This article summarizes that exploration and frames broader questions for the profession regarding how routine, non-disaster-related repairs should be addressed within the EBC framework.

Structural engineering projects that involve the evaluation and restoration of existing structures requires continuous engagement with the International Existing Building Code (IEBC), as well as local building codes. For instance, structural engineers in California must also consult the California Existing Building Codes (CEBC) and the Los Angeles Existing Building Code (LAEBC). Over the past two decades, these codes have evolved to address seismic upgrades, material compatibility, and substantial structural damage (SSD) thresholds. However, many routine repair scenarios fall into interpretive gray areas, especially when hazardous conditions are identified that do not meet SSD triggers.

Structural engineers may operate in different professional capacities:

Conflict often arises when the EOR identifies a condition that is hazardous or unsafe from a structural standpoint, while an insurance consultant interprets the same condition through the narrower lens of damage thresholds, such as SSD triggers. These differing perspectives can lead to disagreements regarding whether repairs must address underlying structural deficiencies or may be limited to “like-for-like” material replacement.

In a recent project involving a church structure, partial roof collapse triggered removal of interior gypsum plaster assemblies due to both structural damage and asbestos abatement requirements. Exterior cement plaster remained in place. Historically, combined interior and exterior plaster systems contributed to lateral shear resistance.

Following removal of the interior plaster, the EOR evaluated the remaining lateral system and determined that new plywood shear walls and foundation hold-down retrofits were required to restore code-compliant performance. This determination was based on the principle that repairs should not perpetuate hazardous or unsafe conditions, even when SSD thresholds are not formally triggered.

Conversely, the insurance consultant cited LAEBC provisions related to SSD thresholds and recommended repair using like materials, effectively leaving the reduced lateral capacity unaddressed.

This scenario illustrates the broader professional challenge: how to reconcile life-safety responsibilities with threshold-based code triggers.

A series of structured questions posed to ChatGPT focused on:

While ChatGPT does not replace professional judgment, it provided a structured framework that aligned closely with established regulatory and ethical standards.

ChatGPT correctly identified that the EOR’s responsibilities are distributed across multiple sections of the LABC rather than consolidated into a single provision. These responsibilities include:

Importantly, the analysis emphasized that approval by the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) does not relieve the EOR of responsibility for design adequacy.

The analysis clarified an important distinction: LAEBC Section 302 assigns authority to declare and enforce correction of dangerous conditions to the Building Official, not to the Engineer of Record.

However, once a dangerous condition is identified, the EOR’s role is to:

This distinction reinforces that enforcement authority remains with the AHJ, while technical responsibility rests with the design professional.

ChatGPT emphasized that when an engineer becomes aware of a potentially dangerous condition, professional obligations are triggered regardless of enforcement authority. These include:

This framework aligns with accepted standards of care and professional ethics in California practice.

A particularly relevant portion of the discussion addressed consultants retained by insurance carriers. Once informed by the EOR that a hazardous condition exists, the consultant cannot rely solely on insurance damage thresholds to dismiss life-safety concerns.

The analysis highlighted that consultants must:

SSD thresholds establish triggers for mandatory upgrades; they do not define whether a condition is safe.

These findings highlight a persistent gap between code language, insurance practice, and engineering responsibility. Existing Building Codes provide clear triggers for large-scale upgrades following major damage events, but they provide less explicit guidance for routine repair scenarios where hazardous conditions are uncovered incrementally.

This ambiguity creates practical challenges for:

Recommendations for the Profession

Based on this analysis, several opportunities for improvement emerge:

The purpose of this exploration was not to assign fault, but to identify structural ambiguities within current practice. The interaction between EORs, insurance consultants, and building officials will continue to increase as rehabilitation of aging building stock becomes more common.

Using AI tools such as ChatGPT to examine code interpretation highlights opportunities for clearer regulatory language and improved professional coordination. Ultimately, the goal remains unchanged: ensuring that repairs and alterations do not perpetuate hazardous conditions and that public safety remains the primary outcome of structural engineering practice. Lastly, we should not forget that ChatGPT is just one tool in our handbag, and it is the Engineers responsibility to verify the information provided by ChatGPT or others is accurate. ■

About the Author

Steven G. Provenghi, SE, FASCE is the managing principal at Mackintosh & Mackintosh Inc. Consulting Structural Engineers Since 1941. He has over 50 years of experience working on existing buildings and structures.