Landscapers, contractors press legislature for liability limits on snow contracts

Owners and representatives from landscaping and snow-removal businesses told the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development that indemnification and hold-harmless clauses in contracts make insurers unwilling to cover snow operations and expose contractors to high settlement costs for incidents they cannot control.

Douglas McDuff of Landscape America described a 2021 slip-and-fall claim that settled for $365,000 after his insurer dropped the company; he and other witnesses described insurance markets with “only 3 insurance companies in the state” willing to cover snow operations and said rates rise sharply after a single claim.

Brian Page, president of Page Landscape Company, said property managers and receivers often set contract scopes that restrict when contractors can plow or treat surfaces but then shift full liability to the contractor. “This connection leads us to a really difficult decision,” he said. “Do we turn down the business because of the snow liability, or do we take that risk?”

Joseph Seskiewicz and other long-time contractors testified that many contractors have faced protracted litigation over alleged slip-and-fall claims even when no snow or ice conditions supported liability; one witness said it took nearly seven years for an allegation to be removed from a suit.

Witnesses pointed to liability-limit bills passed in other states — Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut and Pennsylvania were cited — and asked the committee to consider similar protections for landscapers and snow-service providers while clarifying that the industry is not seeking immunity from liability for negligence.

The bill before the committee would limit certain contractor liability arising from contractual indemnification clauses; witnesses and committee members discussed applicability to private and public contracts. No committee vote occurred during the hearing.