Landscaping firms ask for liability shield for snow-removal contracts; insurers and unions weigh in
Loading...
Summary
Landscape and snow-service companies urged the committee to pass S.1370/H.2100, which would limit contractor liability for certain snow-and-ice incidents tied to contractual scope; witnesses cited rising insurance costs, contract hold-harmless clauses and multimillion-dollar settlements.
Several Massachusetts landscape and snow-management business owners told the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development that current contract terms and insurance practices make snow-and-ice work financially untenable for many firms.
Company owners described contracts that include broad indemnification and hold-harmless clauses and that restrict contractors’ ability to control scope and timing of snow and ice operations. Doug McDuff, president of Landscape America, and Brian Page of Page Landscape Company said owners sometimes lose contracts if they decline to accept onerous indemnity language; they described insurers refusing coverage after a single claim.
"Our insurance company ended up settling the claim 2 years later for $365,000," Brian Page said while recounting a slip-and-fall case his firm faced; other witnesses said only a few carriers in Massachusetts underwrite snow operations and that those carriers have tightened or withdrawn coverage.
Witnesses pointed to other states—Illinois, Colorado, Connecticut and Pennsylvania—that have enacted limited liability protections or clarifying rules for snow-removal contractors as precedents, and they said a narrowly drawn shield would ensure contractors are liable only for the work they control rather than for all incidents at a property regardless of cause.
Contractors and industry groups said the current behavior—owners forced to accept broad hold-harmless requirements to get contracts—can drive business to less-qualified providers and reduce winter safety. They asked the committee to report S.1370/H.2100 favorably and craft an approach that preserves liability for negligence while limiting unfair contractual transfers of risk.
No vote was taken at the hearing; committee members asked witnesses about existing state precedents and the trade-offs between liability protection and public safety.
