Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="orangecuse, post: 1664577, member: 668"]
I agree about not taking on that kind of risk.  Actually, I would question what insurance carrier would take on even underwriting such a thing in that scenario.  NYS labor law is also notorious when it [I]involves injury from heights[/I] under 240 & 241 of it, where [I]absolute liability[/I] applies...it would hold the injured party free from any culpability if it were from a height, even if culpable.

Undoubtedly, SU will have iron clad [I]hold-harmless/indemnity[/I] agreements as well as likely being named as [I]'additional named insureds' [/I]on its contracts that'll exist with the general contractor and/or construction manager.  As long as SU is '[I]passive[/I]' in the project's scope having no [I]'active'[/I] involvement, etc. where they're instructing, advising, directing, etc. whom they hired, their exposure should be minimal/nil if anything catastrophic were to happen as they would have the duty to defend/indemnify under the aforementioned contracts.  The duty to defend is greater than the duty to indemnify, so legal fees in regards to defending such a catastrophe could still be substantial, even with very limited actual liability.

Where SU's exposure is likely the greatest is the premises exposure.  Slip & fall, construction debris, etc., although, a lot of that exposure can get passed along to the contractor/cm in charge of the site who has the responsibility to keep areas barricaded off, signage, clean, etc.  Most of those type injuries shouldn't be anything catastrophic in nature, but rather mainly minimal.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?