Vermont judiciary committee hears sharp divide over proposed statute of repose

Summary

Witnesses for the construction industry urged a 5–6 year statute of repose to limit long tail liabilities and lower insurance costs; plaintiff‑lawyers and public‑interest advocates warned a six‑year bar would create sweeping immunity that can block claims for serious latent harms, including school contamination and defective foundations.

A legislative hearing on Jan. 30 drew competing testimony over H.589, a bill that would bar most construction‑related legal claims after a fixed period. Supporters from the construction and insurance industries told the Judiciary committee the change would bring predictability, encourage bidding competition and reduce insurance and business costs; opponents said the measure would function as broad immunity and deny long‑latency victims a remedy.

Adam Osha, a senior client executive at 1 Digital Insurance, told the committee that without a statute of repose contractors and insurers face an unpredictable “tail” of liability that drives up bid prices and reduces the pool of bidders on design‑build projects. "I would put 5 years," Osha said when asked what term he would recommend; he added that many contractors could see premium reductions of 10%–25%,…

Vermont judiciary committee hears sharp divide over proposed statute of repose

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading