Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

CLIENT ALERT: HB 159 - Regulatory Indemnity Provisions in Public Works Design Contracts

Client Alert
April 12, 2019

Representative Louis W. Blessing III (R-Colerain Township) recently introduced HB 159 to regulate the use of indemnity provisions in professional design contracts related to public improvements.  The purpose of the proposed legislation is to prohibit public agencies from requiring design professionals to indemnify them from claims which are not attributable to negligent or other wrongful conduct on the part of the design professional.

Under certain existing state and local contracts, design professionals may be required to defend public entities against third party claims before there is a determination that the design professional has committed an error.  These “broad-form” indemnification requirements may also include a “duty to defend” where the design professional is similarly required to retain an attorney to defend the public agency against third party claims before any legal liability for the claim has been established.  These types of indemnification requirements impose obligations which are typically not covered by professional liability insurance which only applies to claims caused by the engineer or architect’s negligent conduct.

H.B. 159 attempts to bring indemnity obligations in line with principles of fairness and the availability of insurance coverage.  The bill acknowledges that while design professionals are legally responsible for damages caused by their own professional negligence, they should not be required to indemnify and/or defend a public agency for losses that he or she did not cause and which are uninsurable.

BMD will continue to follow this proposed legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Additionally, you may reach out to your local representative to share your support for or opposition to this bill.

If you have questions or need more information regarding the potential impact of HB 159, please contact BMD's Construction Law Group, or contact:  Robert A. Hager, Justin M. Alaburda or Martin J. Pangrace.

 

Construction LawDesign ProfessionalsOhio H.B. 159BMD's Construction Law GroupRobert A. HagerJustin M. AlaburdaMartin J. PangraceBMD AttorneysBMD Akron Ohio
Client Alert

Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board Rule Changes

March 29, 2024The Counselor, Social Workers, and Marriage and Family Therapist (CSWMFT) Board has proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code rules discussed below. The rules are scheduled for a public hearing on April 23, 2024, and public comments are due by this date. Please reach out to BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis for help preparing comments on these rules or for additional information.Client Alert

Latest Batch of Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board Rules: What Providers Should Know

March 25, 2024The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board recently released several new rules and proposed amendments to existing rules over the past few months. A hearing for the new rules was held on February 16, 2024, but the Board has not yet finalized them.Client Alert

Now in Effect: DOL Final Rule on Classification of Independent Contractors

March 21, 2024Effective March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted a new standard for the classification of employees versus independent contractors — a much anticipated update since the DOL issued its Final Rule on January 9, 2024, as previously discussed by BMD.  In brief, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) creates significant protections for workers related to minimum wage, overtime pay, and record-keeping requirements. That said, such protection only exists for employees. This can incentivize entities to classify workers as independent contractors; however, misclassification is risky and can be costly.Client Alert

Florida's Recent Ruling on Arbitration Clauses

March 15, 2024Florida’s recent ruling on arbitration clauses provides a crucial distinction in determining whether such clauses are void as against public policy and providers may have the opportunity to include arbitration clauses in their patient consent forms. On March 6, 2024, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded Florida’s Fifteenth Circuit Court ruling of Piero Palacios v. Sharnice Lawson. The Court of Appeals ruled that the parties’ arbitration agreement did not contradict the Legislature’s intent of Florida’s Medical Malpractice Act (the “MMA”), but rather reflects the parties’ choice to arbitrate claims entirely outside of the MMA’s framework. Therefore, the Court found that the agreement was not void as against public policy.Client Alert

Corporate Transparency Act Update 3/14/24

March 14, 2024On March 1, 2024, a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama concluded that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) exceeded Congressional powers and enjoined the Department of the Treasury from enforcing the CTA against the plaintiffs. National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.). On March 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed the district court’s decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Older posts
Newer posts