# H.B. No. 7140 passed in CT signed into law



## MSsnowplowing (Nov 1, 2012)

If you don't know about this here it is

Sec. 38. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2019, and applicable to contracts entered into on and after said date) (a) As used in this section:

(1) "Service provider" means a person providing services under a snow removal and ice control services contract;

(2) "Service receiver" means a person receiving services under a snow removal and ice control services contract;

(3) "Snow removal and ice control services contract" means a contract or agreement for the performance of: (A) Plowing, shoveling or removal of snow or ice, (B) de-icing services, or (C) a service incidental to subparagraph (A) or (B) of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, operating or moving snow removal or de-icing equipment or materials.

Substitute House Bill No. 7140 Public Act No. 19-161 23 of 26 (b) A provision, clause, covenant or agreement that is part of or in connection with a snow removal and ice control services contract and that:

(1) Requires or has the effect of requiring a service provider to indemnify a service receiver for acts that the service provider is not required to perform, or is instructed by the service receiver not to perform, under a snow removal and ice control services contract, or

(2) requires, or has the effect of requiring, a service provider to hold a service receiver harmless from any tort liability for damages resulting from the acts or omissions of the service receiver or the service receiver's agents or employees is against public policy and void if it prohibits the service provider, by express contract terms or in writing, from mitigating a specific snow, ice or other mixed-precipitation event or risk.


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

That’s from back in july. We need case law to really learn how the law will help us or explain legally what it means.

I got the wording removed from one contract two others said it doesn’t apply to them!


----------



## jonniesmooth (Dec 5, 2008)

fireside said:


> That's from back in july. We need case law to really learn how the law will help us or explain legally what it means.
> 
> I got the wording removed from one contract two others said it doesn't apply to them!


So what does it mean for us simple folks?
As you understand it, anyway.


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

Well long and short they can’t not hold you to work outside your scope and known professional standards. So you plow salt you have meant what prudent person would have done. It becomes the responsible of property owner to monitor conditions. Even during the event. It also makes it understood you can’t make snow magical go away. 

Ct also has common law which means you have 24 hours to clear snow that’s what most town and city base there laws on for sidewalks. 

My sister is one of them big corporate attorneys she like the language but she said cr courts would decide the true meaning of the law based on two other states that have it


----------



## MSsnowplowing (Nov 1, 2012)

fireside said:


> Well long and short they can't not hold you to work outside your scope and known professional standards. So you plow salt you have meant what prudent person would have done. It becomes the responsible of property owner to monitor conditions. Even during the event. It also makes it understood you can't make snow magical go away.
> 
> Ct also has common law which means you have 24 hours to clear snow that's what most town and city base there laws on for sidewalks.
> 
> My sister is one of them big corporate attorneys she like the language but she said cr courts would decide the true meaning of the law based on two other states that have it


I put this in my contracts;

The Client shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Snow Contractor and or subcontractors from and against any and all liabilities, costs, damages, and expenses (including without limitation attorneys' fees and other costs of defense) for injuries or damage to persons or property which occur while Snow Contractor is not physically on premises while they are not in performance of the scope of their duties outlined in the contract


----------



## leigh (Jan 2, 2009)

MSsnowplowing said:


> I put this in my contracts;
> 
> The Client shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Snow Contractor and or subcontractors from and against any and all liabilities, costs, damages, and expenses (including without limitation attorneys' fees and other costs of defense) for injuries or damage to persons or property which occur while Snow Contractor is not physically on premises while they are not in performance of the scope of their duties outlined in the contract


 That sounds good but isn't that similar to what the nationals do ? Can you add language to a contract that nullifies the laws that govern these matters.What would keep the "injured" party from going after you ? He's not under you're contract.I'm happy these matters rarely come up,at least in my experience.


----------



## MSsnowplowing (Nov 1, 2012)

leigh said:


> That sounds good but isn't that similar to what the nationals do ? Can you add language to a contract that nullifies the laws that govern these matters.What would keep the "injured" party from going after you ? He's not under you're contract.I'm happy these matters rarely come up,at least in my experience.


A what if situation;

Monday it snows and we get a 4 inch snow storm.
We do the job, clear the snow from the roadway and parking lots and sand.
One car parked never moves.
The next day we check the place and that car is still there, pictures taken, log entry made, client notified.
3rd day, we get a call saying there was a slip and fall, seems the car finally moved after brushing off the snow and someone parked in the spot or next to it and slipped on the snow and got hurt.
A few months later we get notice that we are being sued.

My clause means the client has to defend us and I shouldn't have to use my insurance at all when I am not there. 
Otherwise I'm responsible for the place from Nov 1st till April 30th even on non storm days and that's not happening unless the client is paying big bucks for me to monitor the site every day.

In a slip and fall lawsuit, client and contractor both get sued -(I got sued in a slip and fall from a sidewalk we didn't even take care of, we just did the roads their maintenance handled the sidewalks. And yes it got dropped for me because of that, client took the hit)

The biggest thing is who's insurance takes care of it in the long run that is why they want you to indemnify them so their rates don't go up but the problem is they want you to indemnify them all 6 months even on days your not there.

The bill passed seems to cover this, whether or not you have it written into your contract.

I wish the bill was a bit more specific and would like to see a bill limiting slip & fall lawsuits as most are a scam just to get money.


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

Ok, above is the perfect avenue for the hb7140. Under ct current law 24 hours to clear location common since law. Pictures taken you plowed salted as per scope of contract correct. You should be all set according to what has now happened in other states with the same current law. I do like your language but add one thing 

daily site monitoring and ice checks are not provided under the terms or scope of this agreement. It shall be the responsibility of the site facility’s to monitor site conditions and notify contractor of conditions outside of the scope and term of this agreement.


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

Another point my sister raised. If you are under a multi year deal signed before July 2019 the law does not apply but that’s for the courts to decide she said. She did say if a client refused to remove the language just to go with it as the full contract is null and void in the state of ct. your contract can’t have language that is not legal in that state no matter what they say


----------



## leigh (Jan 2, 2009)

Gotcha,guess it will become clearer as time goes by.Just ignored a call from Ferrindingo about some lots in Bethany, next time I'll answer and ask if they've changed contracts to reflect current changes in law,that will be interesting. Maybe ask if they will add me on their insurance as an "additionally insured party ":laugh:


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

Bethany where we don’t have anything


----------



## leigh (Jan 2, 2009)

fireside said:


> Bethany where we don't have anything


Best Friends Pet Care 227 Cheshire Road. _Bethany_, _CT_, 06524. Might be to big for me !


----------



## fireside (Mar 1, 2008)

leigh said:


> Best Friends Pet Care 227 Cheshire Road. _Bethany_, _CT_, 06524. Might be to big for me !


Really that place needs a national to handle there snowplowing!! Lol


----------

